HomeMy WebLinkAbout0242.095•
TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CI1Y MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE: May 8,1994 CMR:241:9S
SUBJECT:
REOUEST
Lytton Avenue Neight-orbood Trame Study· Recommendation
Crem Policy Ind s.,,,1ces Cllmmittee
AI its meeting 00 December 6, 1994. the Policy and Sel1ilces Committee passed a motion
recommending to the City Council that staff proceed with implementation of a traffic
management plan fo< tbe LytiOll Avenue Neighborhood. identified as Alternative Sin
CMR:53J:94 (Attachment I), 00 a si"'ITIooth trial ""sis. The purpose oftb;s report is 10
forward, for Council action, the Environmental Assessment that was prepared for the
traffic management plan, and I<> provide additional information.
RECOMMEl'o'UA nONS
TIle recommendation of the Policy and Services Committee is 10 proceed with the
impl=tatioo of Memative S (E"l'lIbit 1) Oil. six-month trial basis. IiCour.c.l wishes
to proceed with tlHs recommendation., Council s.'>ould awave a moIioo mat:
a. Approves the Negative Declaration (Enviromnen!al Assessment 195-ElA-Sr .. a
copy of which is incfuded as Anacp.ment 2;
b. Directs staiflo proceed with the implemenlation of .AJtemative 5, on a SLx-month
trial basis; and
c. Directs staff 10 prepare a Budget Amendment O:-dinance transferring a !o!a1 of
$74,000 from the CiIy's Street Improvement fund 10 • new Capital lmprovement
Program Project· Lytton Neigllborhood Traffic Managemenl Pian -ill order to
provide funding for a trial mstaTIatiGll.
Page 1 017
~!~ ~ s_ lO ~Ii Ui
i ~ l " ~~) i j 1'0 ·0 0 ~ !,I~ ~b /! * • le! ~ ~! .
-:>
!r-III w • ~ «
•
"-"' ...
}.~: -
f
,--. .-. ~
':;-
-~:.:.'.!. -
If Cooneil cIoes not wish to proceed wi!.'! tl;e implementation of a traffic management pi"".
staffre=:lds that Council direct staifnollo proceed funher with this matter.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The acti<ms considered in this report represent implementation of existing policy (ie.
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Pobcy 4: Reduce tl-uougb traffic m residential
streets).
Implementation oftbis project, like other smular trnffi<: managemenl measures. continues
to incrementally add to the regularly required need for maintenance without any
coocomila'ltbudget adjustmenl formaintenaoce and landscaping within the Public Works
Budget In addition, maintenance of the de\ices may require services thai are not included
with curren! s'.affing. or for whicb funding is no! available in the Public Works Budget.
The installation oftrnffic management devices is vel)" likely 10 be localed on 1Oo;J of one
or more .mderground utilities. \.\'hile pro,;sion is made for normal service access, there
",ill Ekely rome a time when a portion of su<oh devices ",11 have to be removed lI1Jd
replaced. in order 10 accomplish needed repair or replacemelll: of the underground utility.
WbiIe StreeI Improvement Funds are an e~gible sour~ of funding for such projects within
the public roadway. the use of these funds for these types of projects diverts them away
from the City's oogoing street repair/resUIfacing projects. For example, the estimated cost
0( approximately S200.000 for the trail and penr.anent installation of Alternative 5
represents approximately 10 percent of tn. SIree! Improvement Funds available fur a
given year. This equates 10 approximately 2 m~es of streels 10 be resurfaced or sealed in
the 1994195 program. Over time. simiiar or larger diversions will bave a signifk;an!
impact 00 the ability of the City 10 repatrfresurface its deteriorating streets.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Backgronnd
In December 1992, C<>uncil directed ~Iafflo work witb resident> of the Lytton Avenue
neigbboffiood 10 evaluate and report back 10 tile Council regarding appropriate steps to
be !liken. if any, 10 reduce the impact oftraffi<: short cotting tlU"oug.1! the neigbborhood on
Palo Alto Avenue<1..yttoo Avenue via the PopeiCbaucer Bridge. Residents had expressed
con<:erns regarding the arnount and speed of traffic. pointing out that safety. noise,
oomfort and the Quality of life of their neighborhood" ere being compromised.
CMR:242:9S Page::!ofl
";'"'-, ",
<.
. ,
...
Study Phase One
."
,~-~ ..
-,-.
',--1
, ... ,-;~
The study process that ensued included identification of issues, coIlox:6on of field da!a,
initial ckvelopmelll of multiple alternative plans, and refinement of a smaller set of plans.
The process included multipl~ meetings with a Neighborhood Working Groop and one
neighbochood public meeting, prior:o the time that this study was referred 10 the Policy
and Services Committee.
In September 1994, st.aff prepared a report to Council (CMR:424:94; Attachment 3)
m.jewing the study process and findings and recommending Ib.t !he item be fOfWarded
SO the Policy and Services Committee, fOf its consideration and further direction regarding
additional steps foe staffso purSl!e. The study filldings indicate Loat safety and travel
speeds within the study area are nO! unusual lOr comparable streets wi!hin Palo Alto. The
findings also indicate that there is a substa."tiaJ amount of c ut LOrough traflic within the
neighborhood and tha! the potential for mitigating Ihrough traffic on some of the streets
most affected does exist
From a larger set of initial alternatives, the initial study process evo.'ved to the fo!lo\>1ng
fOOr.
Ahernalive 'I
Allemative ill
Alternative #3
Ahemative t4
Install traffic road bumps and other calming devices (i.e., circles,
chokers); limit morning turns 00 University al Guinda ru.d Fulton; and
;Idd a second westbound lane on University near Middlefield.
InS!all a diverter at Seneca and Palo Alto Avenue; install traflic
calming devices; limit morning turns 00 University at Gninda and
F olton; and add a second westbound lane on University near
Middlefield.
C/o ... the Pope/Chaucer Bridge to through vehicular traffic, bUI
maintain access foe emergency vehic les, pedest~";an s, and bicycles.
Maintain the status quo.
Alternative I addresses speeding. but not through traffic "itJlin !he neighborhood; and
Mli1e Alternatives 2 and 3 address the currer.! Ihrough !raffi<: concern. Alternative 1 shifts
through traffic to 0Iher streets and Alternative 3 does not bave support in the
neighborhood oc elsewhere. Alternative.( would not cause any changes from existl.'1g
conditions.
CMR.:242:9S Pa&c l ofl
•
_/.-,.,~ '-."
"::." . "-
'; .
Phase One Review
In Sep!ember 1994, the Policy and Sen-ices Committee r.,iewed t.'le study results, heard
public comments from residents, and discussed various options. They concluded that
meeting with a motion requesting staff!o prepare additional alternatives to those ooted
above. The Committee felt thal Alternative I (Road Bwnps +) did no! sufficiently address
1h<l neighborhood traffic concerns; Alternative 2 (Diverter +) ',vas excessive in terms of
traffic diversion 10 other streets; Alternative 3 (Bridge Closure) was inappropriAte and
sbouId not be considered further; and Alternative 4 (Status Quo) was not acceptable.
Addi!icnal comments reflected an interest in further consideration of measures sL'Ch as
traffic circles and road bumps, and not street closures and di verters. Finally. the
Committee comments reflected an inlerest in redl1cing traffic impacts on local streets
witbout excessive transfer oCtraffic 10 otller streets, and achieving an appropriate balance.
Study Phase Two
Based upon the comments and direction provided by the Poli<;y and Services Committee,
staff developed three new alternatives (No:s 5, 6 and 7) for further consideration AD
iDUSIralioo and summary description oC each oCt.'le !.lyee new alternatives as well as two
oCthe Original alternatives (No:s I aDd 2), are included in CMR:53 1:94 (Attachment I).
Table I in CMR531:94 presents a summary e.a1uation of the t1lfee new alternatives a100g
with two oCthe original alternatives.
Stalfronc1uded that Alternative S. which employs a raised median on Chaucer Street as
weD as traffic management measures on Palo Alto Avenue, Guinda and Fulton Streets,
and Lytto."l Avenue, is the best plan for addressing the neighborhood traffic concerns,
within the context oC 1h<l g'Jjdance and objectives set forth by the Policy and Services
Committee, dur',ng its pre>ioos discussion of this topic.
Phase Two Review
In J)e(-ember 1994, the Policy and Services Committee re.iewed the additional
information concerning the new set of al1ematives. again beard public comments from
residents, and discu$sed various options. Hey coocluded Illa! meeting with a motion 10
recommend 10 Council 10 direct stafflo proceed with implementation of Alternative 5,00
• six-month trial basis, potentially leading to a pennane"t installation .
. ! The Policy and SerV>Ces Committee also asked that this item be brought 10 the full
Council, after Council had completed its discussion oC the Transportation E1emen! of Draft
IV Comprehensive Plan Update Polkies and Programs. C.ouncil discussion of the
Transportation E"lemenl has OCClllTed and included C<lWlCfl derection 10 include a program
Pa&e 4017
--..
. -.
.
to 'Implemenl traffic calrning measures in residential neighborboods 00 local and collector
sl!eels,' (Program TR-2, C, Page 7) as part of the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Updale -Transportation Element.
Cps! Est'.ma!e
For a !ria! installation 0( Alternative S the estimated COS! is a total of $74,000, comprised
of the kIlowing parts:
Pm A:: 532,000 1Or!he;emporary install.tion of On<! circle, ooe oval, and one raised
median. an 0( wpich would need 10 be rerno,'ed and replaced for a permanent
installation (00( usable for pennanelll plan).
Pm B: $12,000 for a IotaI cl' tluee road bumps which can only be installed on a
pennanell! basis, and would subsequently need 10 be removed if 00( part of a
pennanenl plan (usable ifilie-j remain part of the permanent plan).
Part C: S30,()()() roc lane restriping and relocation of lTafik signal Joop detectors [0
creale an additional westbound tTIrough lane on Urnvers'ty Avenue at
MJcIdlefield Road. This is an existing appcoved project from Ibe Cilywide
Land Use and T ransponation Study, and staff would otherwise plan 10 pursue
funding and implementation as part of tlle 1996-97 Capital Improvement
Program process (useable with Of without. pennanent plan).
Fat a permanent installation of Altemative 5 (if the trial is soccessful and a decision is
made to move b>\'llIlI with a pennaner.t instanation). the estimated cost is an addifJOflal
$120,000 10 change the circle, oval_ ,md raised median (Part A). The road bumps (Part B)
and the restriping and loop relocation for University A venue (Part C) would remain in
place and unchangea.
In summary, the cost 10 implement 3 si" month trial is S74.000.
• If, after the trial period, a decision is made 10 implement Altemative 5 011 a
permanent basis. the road bumps ($ 12,(100) and restripingiloop relocation
($30,000) would be retained, arJd an addi600al $! 20,000 would be required for the
circle, oval, and median.
• If; after the trial period. a de"ision is made 10 abanGo" fl!!1ner consideration of any
traffic management plan, We reslripingiloop relocation {S30,OOO) would be
retained, and an additioo.al $6,000 wou!d be required to remove the t. .... ee road
bumps.
CMtt:242:9S Pageiof7
. ".-
',/.-":. .. ;.., .' :.-. --: -
"' '.~ it ._ . .'
.-"
-' -'. -,
• If, after the trial period, a decision is made to try some traflk rn anagement
arrangement 00 a trial or pennanent basi',:JJe re$tripin~'Ioop relocation ($30,000)
w<llM be retained,. and additional funds (now \l1ldetenninable} wonld be needed 10
mstaJVrernove various elements.
Coordination with Infrastructure PromolS
At !he present time, the Public Wcrls Department is planning 10 install a new storm drain
and !he Utilities Department is planning 10 replace a water main aloog segments of L ytt{)Q
1iDd PIW Alto Av~nues, and G,linda and Fultoo Streets. Bo\h projects are scheduled to
begin this summer, and are to be completed by December 1995. This work ",111 cause a
disruption in traffic flow througllout a portion of the neigh boffiood foc which the traffic
management plan is intended to be implemented, and. thcrefQfe, mzke any evaluation of
the impacts oflbe six-month trial impractical. Sil1Ce it is DOC possible 10 implement even
a shortened trial before the start of the storm drain wor", t'>e actual implementation of a
six-month trial, if approved by CouncIl, woold DOt likely occur until the first quarter of
1996.
Next Stees
If Couoci\ approves the implementation of a traffic management plan for the LyttDll
Avenue Neighborhood, 00 a six-month trial basis, staff will proceed with the following
steps:
a. Prepare the necessary plans and specifldltions for the trial implementatio<L
b. RelllrlllO Council with a Budget Amendment Ordi.lance that would create a new
CIP Project and transfer S74,000 from the Street Improvement Fund fur this
pr~
c. Install traffic managemelll de.ices in accordance wilb the approved plan, after t.'le
completion of storm drain project along L)ttOD and Guinda.
d. Mooitor on-going operations of tl,e trial trat& management plan, complete an
evaiuation at the end of the six-month trial period, and, thereafter. return to Council
fur further direction.
FISCAL IMPACr
The cost (oc implementation of Ahemative 5 00 • six month trial basis is $44,000, plus
530,000 fur reslriping University Avenue. Subsequently, ifa simll at plan is approved fur
permanent installation, a preliIPjnary cost estImate for implementation is an additional
1'llge' of1
-.. '
; .---,.,;. .'
." ... ';'
:::-~::, " "--..... .,-,
$120,000_ In addition, implementation "",JI increase maintenance requirements, for which
Public Weds is 00( currently slilled.
If Coonc~ directs stafflo proceed "'ith the hnplementation of Alternative 5 00 a si)(-month
trial basis, staff wi!! retlffi with a Budget Amendment Ordinanc<: thar would create a new
CIP Project:md transfer $74,000 from tbe Street Improvement fund for this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSF.$SMENT
An Environmental Assessment (95-EIA-S) recommending a Negative Declaration bas
b«n completed, and is included as Attachment 2.
AlTACHMENTS
Attacl-.ment I: CMR.:S3J:94; December 6, 1994
Attachment 2: Environmental Assessmeot (95-EIA·5)
Attachment 3: CMR:424:94; September 19. 1994
Prepared By: Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer
Manoo L. Overway. Chief Transportation Offkial
Department Head Review: n!. A-.A. t-.L. R. -~bvu I -KrNNETHR. SCHREIBER -
DirectO£ of Planning
and Community En "ironment
City Manager Approval:
CiI)' anager
cc: Wodcing Group Members
Crescent Parl.; Neighoo{hood Association (Margaret Feuer)
CiI)' of Menlo Parl«Jan Dolan, Don Dey, Rubin N'no)
City of East Palo Alto (Jerome Groomes, William Howard,
David Miller)
East Palo Alto Transportation TasJ.: force (}kidi SaneJ)
Safe Open Streets (Eric Doyle)
' ..
Pa.ge 7 of 7
',', --. --' -'-~ ~~ . .o:;: .. , ..
-. ,
TO:
A TTEl'ITION:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Policy • nd Services Comrruttee
ATTACHMENT 1
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE: December 6,1994 CMR: 531:94
SUBJECT: Lytton A venue Neigbborhood TraffIC Study -Supplemental
Alternatives
RF..oUEST
AI the September 20. 1994 meeting of the Polic), .rod Servk.; Committee. the discussion
of tho Lytt"" Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Stue), conduded with. reqlles! 10 staff :0
cievelcp additional alternatives fo<: consideration aoo discussion by the Policy and Senices
Committee.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff f'OCOmmends tha! the P()/jcy 800 Senices Committee recommend 10 Council that staff
proceed with the implementation of Altern.tive 5 on I si.-month trial basi •• poomlially
leading 10 a permanent ... tan.tion. Staff will prepare an En"ironmenlal Assessment and I
Budget Amendment Ordin.a= 10 fund the trial installation foc consideration and ",,!ion by
Coundl. in conjunction with. and consisterd with. the Policy and Servkes C"",mittee
reoommendation.
POlJCY IMPIJCA~
The actions considered in this report represent impterr:enlafion of existing po!jdes (i.~.
Compreheosi¥o Plan Transportation POrICy 4: Reduce througb traffic on residential streets)
and do DOt [nvolve any !leW policy direction.
EXfCll1IVE SllMMARY
From the discussion at its September 20.1994 meeting (minutes included separately in litis
Council p.cket). the Policy and Services Committee requested 1,'1.1 staff prepare additional
iliem.tives 10 those identified in the September 19. 1994 staff report (AUacliment 2.
CMR:424:94). The Committee felt that Alternative I (Road Bumps +) did no! suffkiently
address the neigbborhood traffic concerns; Alternative 2 (Diverter i--) ""as e~cess.ive iD
lerms oftraffk diversion to other streets; A!temative 3 (Bridge CIos",e) wa. inappropriate
and sbook! not be considered further. and Alterative 4 (Slatu. Qual \\'O.s nO! acceptable.
Pa;e 1 of ..
. .
,k
,.
:\
, , '''1'1
-".I"
,;."
)
,,' I
, .... i .
,
i
I
low
2 t meCium
5 ! medium 16
6 \ high IS
7 I tow \7
Notes:
• ____ . _,~'R
TABI,.Il I
BVAW,,'I'I¢N 01' A1.'l'BRNATIVF_~
TuM restriction enfol'¢Cn1('Jtt nmtcd at 3 locatjQns.
In~rior neighborhood ciIGutatiol' bloo1<ed. '\Vm
/'e,litriction 6Rlon"<tm¢t'lt nt'JCded. at 2 locations,
I Hale I $44K O<:Casic;n'lal medIan enforcement needed at 1
localion
I Chaucer I $4?1< ! $130K I Occa,:onal median enrot\.-emen! • ..oed ot 2
l()('a(jl)ns. -\ Hai_ l S36K I S 101 K I 'rum f'Cstriction enrorce~nt n_ at 3
lOCation!!.
1. 'rhis Moly.'.' doe, nOl include trip .• on th~ peripheral neighbomood wools of Chaucer. univ.rsity. ~r Middlefield,
2. Speed reduction locations include ciroles, ~ivenett. 'ft\l~ medians. new .\top signs, and bump!.
,. The minimum noticeable ine"","" in volume i. baS«! on an incr""se in tM tritE index of atlwl Q.I. rep.exnting •
per=tag_ inc ..... e or approximately 24 percent or moro. The Traffic Infu,ion on Residential Environment, in<lex is •
representation of a resident', pel'(oplion of the effecl of traffic on typical aclivities Ihat r.,idents engoge in n" their local
5/1' .. 1" The higher the exi.ting vr)lomo. tile 8re.otct Ih. i,.,,,,,,,,, thaI con occur b<llote it lltWme, no!iCCL\ble to the
average resident.
4. Pennanenl cosl, do not include ~-o>l of road pump. an~ 'ign., which are .ssumed to be in,talled on a permanent ba>i. as
part of • llial in.lRllation.
S. Each alt_matiy, will inorease maint.nance teI.Iuirornentl. Public Work< i, not curt\1lldy sta((ed for tll6 a<k!itionll
world""",
, '
',':'
!.,"
~'-i ':
,','-
" d,'
., '
',~ -
',',
'" ,-' '.
"j.'"
: "',t . ,,'
',\
.,
,,, ..
.'f'
,
," .. ,
c ,
'"
#'
AdditiorW' commentl. rer~ an interest in further CQM"ideration 0( measures such as traffic
circle. &nd roadbump5, and no( streel closures and diveTiers. Fina:ly. the Committee
CQlnments reflected an inferest m reducing traffic impacts 00 local streets without excessive
transfer <>f Itaffi<: to <><her st=!>, and Ichieving an awopriale bala""".
&sed upon the comment. and direction provided by the Polky and Services Commitl"-".
staff has developed Loree"",w alternatives (No.'. 5, 6, and 7) (or further cor,sider4tion. A!I
illustr.lOOn and summary descri¢on of .ad, of the !lu-ee new aitematives, III weD", two
d!he original alternatives (No.'. 1 and 2}, is jnduded as Attachment I. Table I is •
summary evaluation of t!,., three ne'N allem.~ves and 1""0 of!1le original a!t<:rnal;'es.
S!nff h"" concluded that Alternarive S. which employs I raised median on Cboucer Streel
as .... 11 as traffic control <levices on Palo Aho A venue, G"ind. ~r.d Full"" Streets, and
Lylton Avenue, is !toe best plan for addressing tbe neighborhood "ar1k concerns, within tI-.e
coolen ofrbe guidance and objectives sel forth by Ole Policy and Services Committee during
its previous discussion of this topic, Implementation of any suck pIa. sboold be done 00
• six-month trial period basis, fo!k;wed by >1l evaluation rejlO<l back 10 Council.
~
'The cost for implement.Don of Alterrutive 5 00 a six month trial basis is $44,000, plus
$3(),OOO fur restriping Uruversi!)' Avenue. Subsequently, if .. similar pl." is approved for
permanent installaDon, a preliminary cos! estimate fo< impleOleniation is $120.000. AIIl'",
present !irne, 0-.. ", is no funa.ng established 10 implement any of Ibe alternatives, on o;lher
a trial ()C permanent basis. 13 addioon. impremen~ation will increase maintenance
requirements, CO< whlch Publk Weeks is D<J( currently .. ",fred.
ENYIRQNMEl'ffAl. ASSESSMENT
A. Environmental Assessment ... in be prepared prior to Courn,il action, based upon the
recommendation that the Policy and Se .. v;';", Committee makes to the Council.
AJJ'~
Attachment I: Alternatives I, 2, 5, 6, .nd 7
Altachment 2: CMR:424;94; September 19, 1994
Prepared By: Asbok AU"",'al, CilJ Traffic Engineer
CMR:53J:94 Pa,e 1 of C
Department Head I(e • .;e",: &;:&/;{ t:tj;«4?
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER ./
Direct", of i':anrung
and Coromuftity Eaviromnent
Cily Mar.agee Awroval:
ec: WorJang Gr"'-,\> Members
Crescent Park Neighborhood A,sociation
Cily of Menlo hrk (Jan Dolan, Don Dey, R"bin Nino)
CitJ of East Palo Alto (Jerome Groomes, Wilr.am Howard, Dav;.! Miller)
East Palo Alto rnlnsportation Task Fo<ce
CMR:53J:94 hie f of 4.
-.
ALTERNATIVES
1, 2,5, 6 AND 7
AL TERNATIVE 1
1\.'34
~"'''_~_'1
3380
LEGfNO:
EXlSTtNG [)Ul Y 'IIOLUY£ ('l993j
PROJECTED DAA.. Y .o..UYE
EJcis!jng stop signs
(S~O"O'Il only in the lytlon
neighbomoocl area)
o TraffIC Signals
~ -' :
HALE
" .. . "" ,2'>
,65
WJNTAlNN.L
EXISTING
STOPS~NS
226'l
/~
2170
-,,''''"
.;. ..
. --
, .. ; -.... ' -
""' ~ -~ >" .. ;---;; ,--. , ---
ALTERNATIVE I
Alternative l is a IJ'1oOd'lfied version of Woridng Gro'-lp Scenario J (descn"bed in the previous
report klll1. Policy ."d Service, Commine<:. CMR:423:94}. \0 melude an .dditiooa! AM
rurning restriction. as iHustrated O<l tlJe map 00 the oppo;ing page. T" reduce !!trough traffIC
and ~s in tlle r.eighborbood~ t11is allematJve-empToys AM peak period turn prohibitions
oc westboorn! U:tivcrSft)' at Seneca, Guinda, and Flil~on. zs well as DI,Imerou'i trame calming
devkes -00 Oau.cer. Palo Alto A'Ieoue. a. ... d G\llnda. To improve tnf~c flow ... 'es,oound
throllgb ~ trniversitylMiddle(lCld intersection, mus anracting an increment 01 throogh
traffic off Ihe local neighborhood streets., an additionaJ westbound througb lane WllJ be added
b) restrlplng to remove ooe easlboond througb lane, This lmpro\'emep.t rs common \0 a11
aJtematlve;.
Table t in the main report and the acco.mpari)'lng map pro·"ide details on this aIte~tive.
Ta!tJe l is hef,Pful in comparing the five alternatives under consideration. Tbe analysis of
eJl:::J1ges in daily volumes of Ah:ernaLive , flas beel'l revised slightly since it ~'<:l;S Iast presented
10 [J;e Committee. The adaltiona! tUn! res<.riction at Universiry and Seneca has eliminated the
potential of an increase "in volume on Seneca during the A.M peak period', bur has transferred'
some of this pater-oaT increase 10 HaTe. The predicted incr"...a.se on HaTe from 125 to 165
vehicles per dajl is coo.sidered lD ~ "notkeahle ....., residents'" {based 011 the TIRE index.
describea in Table I. IOOtnote 3). and is the only such location. "the overan. pe"P"Ctive of
ti!e Sower volumes ~rougbout the neighbo,'hood produced by this aJtemative~ the absolute
increase -cf 40 vehicles per da)' 00 Hale 11. refati .... ely sman.
Of ali alternatives cor.sldered'. A.hematjy, J produces tne ~a.st reduction in througb l';'ps 00
the 'internal streets of.ne neigN>orbooj atld, correspondingly. me kast diversion to the
surrounding streets (Chaucer, Hammon, Un:tversity, and Middlef.ekf). Compared 10 the
other alternatives. it has a relallvely ltig& number of new speed redu.:tioa devkes (6
~tiOf]s}. thus PJtentiatl), re6ucing speeds in more k-cations than Aflemative!i 2 and 6,
PoflCe enfon:.ement of the turning restrK:tions (3 J.oca:tioo50) ,,",·m probably be necessary. in its
~..ew of September 2'0. J994. lhe Comrnintt re~ thaI this altem2:tive did not slJfflciently
addfes5 the neighborho...")(j's traffic <:"oocems.
The estimated cost of .a trial in5'..ai'1ati(JfJ fur A'temi2ti",e 1 ~s $26,(0). The cost of il
permanent instaTIafion is $41,000. as.'iuming (hal the road bumps and sIgns that are installed
<is part of the trial "'00 kf nO( r"ro\.."ed to be rep'ace~.
M ad<iioona! cOSot 0( $.30,000 is: required for restnptng kl create all adJltiorial westbound
thrOf..lgfl fane 00 University Avenue at Middlefield Road. The cost of this component is
separated OO{ because i:I: is an e)(lsling approved projecf from the Cj.tywide Land Use and
Transport.;ttloD Stud)' an~ 'Staff already expt'cts 10 pursue funding and [mpiementati"on .as part
of rhe 1996-91 CapitaJ lmprovement Program process,
.~ .
AL lERNA liVE 2
11194 fSoL", .. _ ~ ScnI'" 'I
Existing slop siQns
{shown only iIllhe tyftor.
neighborlloo<! areal
o Traflic Signals
"""
ASO'25
901
..
/--
21Ql
.."--
ALTER!'iATlVE 2
Alternative 2 is the sanlc! as Working Group Scenario 2, and M; illustrated on the map on the
opposing page. To reduc.e to.'*\rvugb traffIC' and speeds in [fie neighborhood. uus alternative
employs AM peal: period turn proll:bttions on westbound University at Guinda and Fulton. a
d"tagonru cfrverter closi:ng automobi1e acCCS\ 'bet-.'een pajo Aho Avenue and LyttOfl~ .as wen as
trafr)C ci!ming devkei on Chaacer and Guinda. Access for bicydes and emergeocy vehicles
through the ~ ...... 'erter would rema~n. ¥,'estbound flow thrcx.:gb. the UniversitylM'.K1dlefield
interset:6on is improved as described for Atternauve L
Tab!e ) and the accOinp-ol."1}1."'lg map y.t'l\llde detai1s on this alternative. The analysis of
cilange.s in d3Jly volumes of A1ternative 2 J'las been revlsed' s11ghtly since j( ~'as iaSi presenled
to the Committee. The predicled increa<;c 00 Seneca frolll 270 ID 350 vehktes per day is
<coosldered ~ be "oot"\ceabte to res.ident'S," .. b.ased OQ the TIllE \nde):.~ and is. the ocly suck
location. Ia Lhe O\'erar! perspective of l1'1e lower volumes chrO\Jghoul the oeiEhbcK"bood
prod!.JCed by this aTtcmative. the absolule increase of 80 vehicles per day on Seneca seems
relativel,. sman .
. "hemauve 2 prW,des.a '"medium" lever of through trip reduction, compared ao the' o<her
ahematives and, correspondingly. a mroJUm level of diversion to the surtounding streets
(<.1ti.ocer .. Hamihon.. Vniverslty~ and MirlQi.efield}-A.s l'lQi.ed ia the prerous. paragraph~
bo'Never .. vol:Jme increases on surrounding streets are not e.xpecled to be noticeable.
Compared to the: other ahemath;es~ Ahemative 2 'has the )owest flum!Jer of new speed
red'uc60a devices. (4. locations} .. thus po!ential1y reducing speeds in f.ewer locations. t1lan [he
other a.l'ternauve§. considered. Ponce enf(Jfcemenl of the turtling restrictions. (2 Jocations) will
probabty be ne-:essary~ In its re""iew of September 20, J994. the Committee ~!t thal this
altt!111ative .'as. e;ll;C"es~\'e in \erms of tr2ff)c O.f\lersioil k} other streets.
CQs Estimale
The estimated cost of a trial i!l.sta!Tat"\Qn for Alterna.ti..,e 2 is S l7,rXIJ, The cost of I.
pennat1enl instanation is S45.0c0~ assuming that the road bumps and sigQS tlIat are instar.a1
as par: -of L~ triar \oIiould not need 10 be replaced_
An additional cost of S.\O,OOO is ff'quired for re-striping to create an additional westbound
lhroogh lane 00 Uni'llcrsity AvenL~ at MidoJlef~ld Rood. The cost of this componenl ts
.separaIOO oot bec<ause it is an uistirog approved project from me C~rj .. ,,,ide Land Use and
Transportation Study af'd smff alread'.1 upel:\$ lO pursue funding and implementatkm :tS pan
of rJle 1996-97 Capital fmprovement Program process...
ALTERNATIVE 5
111904
UtlEfoIO:
"'JS~J<G !lO.t Y'o'OlUME ~""li
Existing Slop sigllS
(s~OI'IIl only mille tytlon
neight>oll1ood are<l]
<) TraffIC Signafs
3550
3040
· --~ .
'-,
ALTEIl'1ATI\'E 5
Alternative S. illu'Sltalec! on the map Otl the opp.."'Sing page, is a new altematl ... 'e developed by
5trl'f_ in respoose to the Committee~s cftrectiOC1. To reduce through traffIC and speeds in the
neigbbol'bOC'd~ this alternative r:npioys il raised meman on Cllatlcer. and D:Jmerous traffiC
wming devices 00 Palo Alto Aver;ue~ Guinda. Ft.tllOO~ and L)·ttoo. The median on Chaucer
also .... oiJld ac1 as a traffIc alming dev~. Only right tnn:;'i in and out of t1'1e east and weS:
legs 0( Palo Arto A\lenue would be possible at the Palo Alto A ..... 'emloe/Chaucer inle;se.::tioo.
Fun atCess for bicycles and emergenc), vehicles ~'ou~d remain. AI'! movements could be
made at the Fultonfl.yt1oo traffic drck am1 the Gu1ndall.yttoo '"{M'a) " . Wes:'OOund f\c'W
l'fL"'OUgb-t1Ie UrJversitylMiddlcf:etd inlersectioo is improved' as described f.or A!U:rn.a!ivt 1.
DQeraOOc and Wee ti\leness
Table I ;;nd t11e accompanying map pro..,ide demits ()(J this alternative. Th~ pedicted
increase Ot, Hale from 1:2510 ISO vehicles per day is considered to be "oo6ce:able 10
restdeOl!;* .. based on tJ,e TIRE lnJe~. and is to..;: only su..::h location. In the overan
per.s.pectj .... e of the lower .... olumes t1notighout [he neightx"Tf';ood prodLlCed by thls alte:::mative,
l1\e absoTute increase .of 25 \lehicles pe, clay 00 Hale is retative1y sma:t
Alternatil(e 50 prol,,'ides a • medium"' level of through trip reduction. similar to Atternative 2~
and a cotresponCingTy medium level of diversio[l lO llie s;JrrOl.mding struts {Chaucer~
H2.milton~ Unrversit.v. and MKld'lerJekf}. As [lored in the prc\oioos paragrapn" bowe\ier,
volume Increases 00 surrol.!nding streets are rK'Il e){pccted 10 be noticeable. Compared 10 the
other alternative~ A!ternative 5-flas 11: r-e1at~ .... e1) rugb flumber of oe .. spee6 reG\)(:fioo dev"k:es
(6 Jo,.."3tions}~
Aftema':.l"t S strikes a reasonable balance betWf.e1l &'~ired volume and speed' reductiol1 versus
undeslccd diversfun cf ~d.ffK: 10 mfier S[ieets aT1d limiy50ns «nelg~borhood access.and
interfltiJ circula.tiO!l_ It does 00[ require poTice enforcemenl ID be fllfl)' effective, as do the
alternatives with pasSive tum restrictions.
('.cst EsP mate
T,he estimared cost of a trial installation fur ."T'temat:ive :5 is $-44,OOCt The cost of a
yerrnanenl mstaitattoo 1"5 $t2(),(X)O~ assumlBg lha.t tl}e road bumps and signs \f'.at are insta.'1ed
iiS pan of the triili woul<! Dot need' $Q be replaced.
All additiona! c~ of S2(l,OC!O lS required for restriptflg '10 create an 2dditlonal westoound
throoglilane 00 Uni .... ers'it)' ....... enue at Midcflefleld Road. The cost of this component is
sepa.."'3ted out because it is an exi'!oting approved project frem the Cf!j'wide land Use Qood
Tnmsportaf.on Stud), and s.taff aTr-e<idy expects. hJ pUfS'--le funding and implementatioo as part
-of tl1e 1996-97 Capital Improvemenl Program process..
AL lERNA liVE 6
, tJ9.4
''''''
s;()
li.GEi'ID '25
""" EX!S1'i~ CAlL 'f 'IIOlL'J.tE (1991 90
"'" PRO..'ECTED D'.It '(VOtt.iME l ,Existi"l1 slop SigllS
(s1lown cnly iolfle ty!lon
nei9llborf\OO<! area) 270 f
<> Traffic Signals 10
N A.
_~_·l04,,,,O"7~.:.:::..GUGl_~,,,_"t.:'''\~:rA--!i~l.!7<l,,°L.tl:.l!:lLll:O~:;t_·_·· .. _ .... _::_o_-..;J~'rf_··_~_~_,~_o __ J ..... ~&--1
i';}'/
, .
ALTElL'IIATlVE"
.. ,.'-
:. -.
Arternative 6, illustrated on tfle map Oil t,he opposing page, is I. new alternative developed by
staff in res.ponse to the Committee"s directKm. To redv..e througb traffic aI'ld speeds in L"1e
neighborbood. this a:lemari\le employs two raised rned'i~r:5 00 Chaucer and Guinda, new stop
si,gRS.<in Paro-Aft..o A veoue al Hare. a road bump 00 Faro Aho A 'oIC(lue, a traffic elIde at tlle
OaindalFul'"..on inLersectjon~ and a fun-time right tlJrD restriction from westbound University
\0 fuhoo. 'The medialis also .. ouM act ~ traffiC calming dev)ce5. Only tig'ht turns in and
out of L'1e ea'it and west legs eX Palo Aho A \/enue ",·ould be possibl:: ilt the Pa!o Alto
Avenue/Chaucer intersectiort At the Guinda/L)'non intersection. the foiJowing movements
would be possible: I1()rt1l-sooth ihroug~ movements on Guinda, right turns from Gu~nda to.
Lytton. er!Stbound lytton through mcvl;:rnen! and riglH lurru. and right and lefllUnlS from
... ~bound Lytton. Togetner~ me two raised medians effectiveiy bh>ck most t:hrougb traffic
a!ang the Palo Aho Avenue-lyt:1OO fOIJTe. Fun access for b:cydes and emergent:), vehicles
w"uld remain at both median k<:atioos .... XI mO\lemer-,ts. could be Itlade at !he Fuhon/LyttoQ
traftic circle. tn order 10 eTiminate a po:entia! heavy di· .. ~r!!ojol'l of (l,rough [rdffic from
.. ·estbound ll.ni-versi[), 1t) nortnl:lOlJnd fuTton~ .a fu!l-time rigM-tClnl prorlibition is proposed.
WesIDoLlnd fkl ... , tlirougb the UruversitylMtddlef.eld inlerse('tiorl is impro\'ed as descnDed for
Alternative f.
Operation and Effectiy.erteiS
Table I and the accompanying map pro\o'lde details co LI):S. altemative. The predicted
increase.on Chaucer from 247{) 1:0 JO:?O ve11"icle<;. per day is considered 10 be "n~cable k>
restdents.'" .. based on the TIRE iooe:{. and is tfle .only SHC~ kx.."'iitKm.
or all alternatives cOflSldered. Alternative 6 prQoiuces. the greatC'St rechx:lioa in Lluougb trips
on 11le internal streets of the neighOOrtood and, cOITeSponcfillg1y. the greatest d'iversioc 50 Ute
suNotmcfi116 streets (Chaucer" Hamilton .. lTnive~if)'. and Mkkf'leflt'ld}. As noted in l'he
previous paragraph. f'lO'l.l,:eveT. vo1ume 'increases 00 surrooliding st,.eeu,. other than Chaucer ~
are Clot expec~ 10 be noticeable, Compared SO the other a!ternative:;, ATtemaGve 61tas II
mid-range nomber of new speed reduction devices (5lr....c.aticns).
Cost; EsP mare
The estimated rosl of a trial instanarioM for Ahematn,.~ 6 is S42,0C(). The co:;! of iii.
permanent instanafion is \lJO.{)x)-. assuming thal the road bumps and signs that are installed
as part of t11e triai ""ou T d O(J( need i() be repTdCed.
An additional cost of S)(),()(l() is required for rtstripTng t.") crt'.ate :ail additionaJ 'III-',---stbound'
througll.lane oc Uni .... e ... sity Aver1Ue at Midllleflek! Road. The cost of this component is
Sleparated out because it i'S an eXisting ~PTOVed projecl from the Ch'y~:kJe Land Use and
Traruporta600 Stud), and staff already expects to pursue fundin.g and Implementation as part
0( the 1996-91 Capitallmp""ement Program proc«'-
ALTERNA TNE 7 \~
11194
~-{
~* S'Al
--T-
o
I i I ... S~
;0 ,
I ~'2'5 / \.E~ND: / -[XfS1W:; ~Jty -.oltAIE {1~ ( •
""" PRO.iKTED Dl.lLT \O..UJE
Exisling slop ~ns "-----------(5/1owIl OIlJy in .e tyllOO
neig~bad!i>o<1 area) \ 0 TrafI'.c Signals \
N
"" ~"
ALTER'1ATlYE 1
Ai'tc:rr.ative 1. inustraied on lhe map on the opp0Sing page. is a new ,utemative de\o'e:ioped by
staff in response '50 the Commioee·s difC"C1ion"in September. It is b.1.sed oa Working Group
Scenar~ i. but "i.th added t..-afflC catmlng, del/ices, To reduce through t.:df6c and spee.d~ ill
lh.e neighborhood. this aTtemati\le employs A..~ pea); period tum protliPitions 00 westbound
Uruvf;fS"ity at Seneca, (J~incfa. and fuito.,. as wen as numerous tfaffx: caTming devicel. on
Chat..'Cer. Para ..... ho Avenue, Cuinda~ Fulton. ancf LyttDn. Westbound flow thI(XJgb the
Un1versitylMiddlefteld intersection is illlpro\led itS descnc.ed fO(' Alternative 1.
Qpr@tioo and Effecti\l eness
Table I aNi U;e acco,1\i>anying map provide de:-tails on this aTternauve. The predicted
L"lCrtase on Hale from 125 to 16..." \ienicles per day is coosldered to be "'noti-cea'ble 10
l'esldents" ba..o;ed on 'the TIRE inocM. aoe Ts the only sock location snc ..... a 011 the m2p.
Ho ... ·evel'~ in the o\'era!\ perspective of me lower \'olur:1eS ti1rou:ghout the neighborhood
prod!JCed by ttlis 81lerrlao ... ·e. l1le absofute increase of 40 vehicles ~r day 00 Hale is
re1aovely small.
AJternafue 7 reduces sflgn!1y mO'l'e Ehroug.b uips on U"le internal streets of the tlelgbborbood
than does Ahemao'\le I. and ts stin t(; the" 10",,'" categOf)' comp.'ued 10 me orner alternatives.
A,i sttc!i •. it produces one of the 1eaSl ~ncre.ases of traffIC (In the surround'mg streets, (Chaucer,
Hamihon~ Univers.iiy. and Mlddief.e'td). }t n~ u~ ~::ri,gl;est number of fie",,' -speed r~ucUon
devices (7 Iocatiotls) of al1. the .aT'tl.'fFlafives. rhus polentiany r~ucing speeds in IT\OTe Jocat'i.oilS
than an)' ctherahematives.. Potice enforce-menl oft1le hlmln,g restrktiOlls (3 krcauons) will
probably be oece,sal).
The ~stimated C\.")5t of a tlial in~r.a6on f.or' Ahernati .... e 1 is S36.0C'0-. The .cost of 'it;
permaneru instatiat~O: is $]01,00}, Oissumlng that the road bumps and s:gr:s mat are lnstaIled
as part of {he tr.a.i would ocll( need ItO be n:p!ac~;1,
AA add!6or.a! cost of $30,000 is required foc rewipirrg to ('Teale an additional westbound
L~roug;' lane 00 Ur.ive~lty Aver.ue at M'Kldlefleld Rood. The cost of this component is
separa~ out becau:se it: is an uisting approved P,()jec~ from the Cj.r~1de Land Use and
Tr.nsportatior\ Stud)' afld staff alre<\oy e-,;.peclSo \0 Pl.lfS'Je fUMing and imptemcntatloo ilS pout
of (he ]996-91 C-apitaf !mprO\'ement Program pil_X'C!>S.
. , .>.'
ATrACHMENf 2
(.~Iron .. ntll Ootument. -tltJ of ,.1. Alt.
fHYIRQNME_YAL A$SES$M£NT
Proj~\ o.strlptlonJ1ltl., ~lJJtq Re!ohborhogd Trifflc Stud.
lotlt'o~~dtlSS:, tba ~riJ bguDd¢4 by ,flg Alto ~venye, C~aucer Street. Ham~
llton AvenUE. and lUd(1eUeld StQid~
Sp<ln, or 1119 Agenqo/ App 11 ca" t : C ... I"t...,t'-"O.1.f.JP"il1l"O.JA"lc.!t ... oc-___________ _
Addre .. and h!ephon. ~f Applicant: ~Ilton A',enoe. Pol. Alto. CA 94306
l1!51 129-ZSSZ
Application for: Iriffic C4'1I1oo 4e~fceh h.ne str'ip'~g. tur. restrictionS.
stop signs.
,lo.log It Project locaHon: P[.R).Rl.R!43Q fee Receipt NC).: !!.ool!!n!5.~_
NOTIU !)f OH£RMlNATiO!j
8ased upon reyi~ of the prQject filts, t~! unders;;ned member of the P1an~iDg
Oe~.r~.t ~.s ~oncl~e4,
lif NegatiYe Declirat~on; Tte prGject bas ~o sfgnifftant environmer.tal
impact. "0 [Av;ror,ment,l l~act Report is r~q~ired, The reas~r.s for a
NegatlYe Dec1aratloo are:
per the attached study. t~ere iTe ~o sign1ficant environment. I im
lact$. T~~s'4ocWlent is ava1l.bl, for revi~ at the Palo ~lto rranspor
.tit!OQ P;ylsioD. Sjxth flnor. (it) Hal]. 2;0 H9~51tan A~er.ue, 8 i._, to
12 ngog In6 I , ._ t. s P F .• ~ndj, Througb fridaY.
Ci Tbe project ."1 have a significant environmenhl impact. An
[Rvironment.l Impact Report will b. prep.red .
• hn.fng Deplrtlllent OffiCial: Cd~, .::{~M.i...&r
Ihnnlog Oire<tor; ...k.-~-~ Date: J {;u.f7>
lhe project has been approved,
Tbe project has bee. denied.
tlAIIOO
Date:
Date:
file "0.: 95-[l~-S
-.. -~~
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PALO ALTO
INITIAL STUQl' , •
. I. Proj«! Title/Addre,,: l.tton N.!q~borh~cod Jr.ffic Stud.
II. 'raject Oe$crfptfon~ '9sta11 trifff, calming d~~icest lane striping.
SUr! restrictions, and new stop sfgns fa t~e are. boun4e~ by Palo Alto
!Yen.oe. C~aucer Street, Untytrs1ty Avenue, a~~ ~jddlerje14 Road.
Alternatives " " 5. 6. and J ire eVi'~ated fl thjs taiti.' Study.
HL (Jlv~ror.menta:l Setthg=-Yrban res'deQt$al area .rlnr dOWTltawn (entnJ
business district, paved roads. natur.l creek with linear park.
landS~aptn9 and tTe~s f. residential Ireaa urban tr,fffc nots~.
!'~ E~vironmentll Impatt (~ecklist (Expianatton of III ·,~s· an~ers are ia
Sect!o" Yl
I. fiI1h. Will the prope,.l resolt I.:
I. ~nstabTe earth conditions Dr c~a~ges
11 geologic substructures?
b. Disrupticns. displacements~ compac
He",. or overc()',/'erlIlg pf the soil
c. Change 1& topograpb, Qr 9ro~nd
surface relfef features?
4~ Tbe destructfon. coveriog or modi
ficatfon gf any unique geolog5c or
PDys1cll features?
~. AnI 1~reise i2 ~nd or water erosion
of sotls J either on cr off the site?
f_ ExposlJre.:lf people Dr propertl tl)
geologic ~azards such as earthq~akes.
la~dslides~ mudslides, ground fi;l~re
or similar ~azards?
9. t~anges i~ siltation~ deposition J or
erQSfOD ~ticft ~ay ~odif1 the c~annel
Df • ri~er Dr the bed Df i bay or
illet?
• Adapted from AppendiJ It (alif~rlii G~i~elines fer [~leme~taticn of
CEQA, Oecembec 14, 1976.
** Updated M,y 1981, June 1983
HACKl 5S·[!A·S
I
.. L
'.
I •
z. A.ll:. Vi)1 the p.QPos.l teS.'t il: ill Mlli JjQ
•• Sabot.nt,., .,. eol,sl •• s •• de-
t.rloratl.o .f ambient lir qual It]? -.L
b. The ~r •• t;p. of objection.bl, .d.rll -.L
<. AHerJ'Ucu cf a1r movement, JKlhture
temperature, or ani ~hange fl cli-
m.t~> .ither loc.111 or .<gI0.011 -.L
3. ~. Vill the propos.' .es,'t il:
•• Cha.ge. I •• bsorptlon r.t ••• dral.aQe
,atterRs) or the rite and imount ef
surf!ce ~ter ru~aff? -.L
b. Alterltlon.to tn. ,cur •• or f)o~ ~f
flood , .. at.n! -.L
c. D~$C~arge f~t~ surface ~t!r5~ Dr 1.
lr.l_11ter~t~on of surrac~ wate~
qua'ity_ jnt?~iQ9 b~t not Ji.lte~ to
teaperature, ~issolved oX~9~n cr
turbldltl' -.L
d. A.lteratic-I?: of t~'e e:liret-tion Dr ri14!:
~f flow of gr~ond wateri? -.L
e. (xposure ef peop1e or p~opertJ to
wate ••• Jaffa hazards s.<\ as flood-
fnq or t'~ll ~av~1 L
f. Chanij!: ia the quant it, -of ground
water$~ either through dtrfct
~d4itions or withdriwa1s l or thr~~9~
fateTceptioRS Gf an ~Quife, by Ctits
{)t" ex(t~at i on51 -.L
•• lli~ll.jU . Win the proposal reswtt il:
t. C~.nge h the dj~er$itl ~f species, tr
Dymber of any speci~s Qf p1ants tia-
tludf~g tre~s~ shrubs. g~iSS~ cro~s,
slcr.fJ.r. ana aqua,!c ,l,nt.}? -.L
•• Reduction of t~e numbers gf AnI
unique, rare a~ eno~"gered spee'tS
of ,lints? -.L
~. htrodll<tfon of flew 5.Pec-ies of
HACKl ~~·UA-$
Z
.-.'.',
plint$ f~to an ~rea, Dr il i barrier
to the Dormal re~leAishment gf
~.,.tlng spetfes!
d~ Reduction ~I acreage of any
agrfc.lturil crop?
5. AnImal lIfe. ~\ll the propos.' res.lt fa:
I~ Chan9~ 11 the diversity of species.
or of ley species af animals (birds.
land anima1s {ncluding repttles.
fish and s~ellfls~, bentile org.nl.&<,
iRsects er .icrefauna]?
b. RedtJctfon cf the numbers (If any
~nique. rare or er.dangered species
of z.l1'mo!ls~
c. IBtro~uctfon of new species of
antmals iate an area. Dr result 1a
a barrier to the migration or move
ment cf anfllals?
d. Oetericratfor. 11 existing fjs~ Dr
wildlift babitat?
6. ~. ~;Il the proposal res.lt la:
1.
s.
I. J~reases i! eXlstiDg noise levels?
~. Exposure of people t; severe DOlse
le'Ve1s?
lfg"t and GI.re. Will the proposal
produce 'fleW" light glare?
land Use. Vill the proposal res~lt is
a sijbstantial alteration Qf the ~re$ent
or ,lanned land use Df an irea?
9. EnergY/Naturil Resources. Will the
proJo-OSll rest:llt fa;
•• Use of substantl.1 amount. of fuel
Dr energy:
~. Substantial ;Dcrease i& demand ypOD
extstiDg so~rces Qf energy. or
ill
£IACKl SS-U.I.-S
3
.' .. '
ill !!Am I!Q
require the development 0' new
sources or Energy? ..!..
c. (ncreise 11 Ule rite ~f use of any
flaturll resources.? ..!..
d. Substantial ~ep1.tlon of any nonre-
newable natural resource? ..!..
10. li$\ of Upset. Ooes the proposal
fnvolye a risk ~f in e~plO$fQn cr the
release Qf hazardous substlnces (il-
eluding, ~t not limited tv. 011,
pesticides. che2;cl1s Qr radiitfoc) i.
the e~ent If an accident or upset? ..!..
11. 'opuliitionIHQu$fng~
o. 'o'nl the proposal alter the location.
distributfo~~ der.sitJ. Qr ~rowth rite
Df Ue bumar\ populltfon ~f iPl area? ...!..
D. '0'111 the propo.a' .ffect .xlstlng
bousfDg~ Dr creite a demand fOT
additional bODstng? ..!..
lZ. I[ins~ortatt~nlCirCMlilti~n.
proposil result ia:
Will the
I. Generation of s"bstanllal additional
ye~fc81ilT moy~~t? ..!..
•• £ffech on uhtlng parl:ing raclll-
Ifes, or demand for new parking? ..!..
c. Alt~rittcns to ,~esent patter~$ of
c1rcllit1on cr ~y~nt of pe~le
ind/or goods? ...!..
4. Increase 11 triffic ~azards to motor
veillcles. 'bfclclists Clf' pec!estriil.l1s? _1_
U. fublic S~[vi~ii. ~ill the propos.l "a'Ve
an effect upon. or res~lt fa I ~eed for new
or .ltered 90vernmentl1 services fl ii1,1 of
the following or ... :
I. fire protecllo,? ...!..
UACKl 9S-U ... ·S
4
ill ~ ~
b. Pollee protoetlon? ..L
c. Sc~oo!s? _1-
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? _I-
e. ~alaten~~e af public ficilities.
1ncladfng roads? ..L
f. ether goveramentil services? J...
14. Utilities. Wjll the proposal resolt
need for ~ew syst~SI Dr sub~tintiil
to ,
,It.r.tlons t. tne followIng .tjlltio.:
t. fawer Qf ~aturll gas? .L
b. Cal!ll'lun;(atiol'l:s sjstellls? .L
e. Vater? .L
d. Sewer or septic tank? .L
e. Sto~ _iter driina9~? .L
f. SolId w.ste and disposal? .L
15. H!.ImiD 1:;Iu 1:t1ll. }jill the proposal resliiIIlt
10:
". Creation of an1 ~ellt. balard or
pot.otl.l be.lt~ bazard Co.eluding .,..Ii 1 hea lt~)! ...L
b. Exposure Cif people to potenthl
h.,lth hlZ.rds? .L
16. Aestlle-tic5. Will the proposal r.s.lt
~I t~e obstructfo~ of any scenlC fista
cr YleW open to tne publ;,_ or ~lll the
Froposal result i! the <feat ion of an
aestbetfcall, offenSive sit! open to
I)lJblic view? .L
17. Becre:ation. ~ill the proposal res~lt
f. an impact "pon the Quallt~ or quantit,
Df exist'DQ recreational opportunities? _1-
{[IICKI 9S-EIA'S
5
ill Mm !!Q
IS. 'Iltytll Be~Q~r'f~~
•• Will t~e propo.al resalt I. t~e
olteritlon of/or t~e de.tr"ction
af I ~ebfstoric or hfstorfc
udaeojoglc.l site? 1..
b. Will the propos.l res.lt I. ad-
verse physical or iesthetlc effe,ts
t •• prehistoric or ~Istoric
bullding, structure; O~ object? 1..
c. Does the proposil b!ye the potentlol
tG ,~use a pbysfcal c~anie whfe'
WQul~ affect unique cultural WilDes? 1..
d. Will the pro~osa' restrict existing
religious or sacred ~ses withia the
p~t2~till i~~act area? ..!-
19. ea"dator~ ffndiDgs of SfgnifjtiD~~.
•• Does the ~roject ~ove the pote,li.1 t •
degrade the qualitl of t~e environment.
5ubstantfal1J reduce the ~abitit ~f I
tid -or wildl He speties. eiuse I lisfl
or wildlife population to dro~ below
self.s~stGilfng le~e151 t~reitea to
el1mi~ate a ,lint Dr animal community.
redL~e the number cr restrict the
range Qf a ~ire Qr endangered plant ~~
i~laal or eli~inate impcrtant e~amples
.f the major porlod. of Colifor.lo
lhtorj or prehistory? 1..
b. Ooes t~e projett baye th~ potentfal
to ac~feve short~ter.~ to the dis~
l~vantage of loog·term, enYlronme~tal
90a1$1 (A short·tena ;~act on the
environment is one ~fc. GCcwrs ia I
relatiVe', brfef, defilllUh'e p~riod
of time wbil. long-te ... imp.cts will
endure ~e'l i~to tbe fwture.) 1..
c, Does the projett have impacts whic~
ire !odf,;du.llJ lfmlted, ~ut
cumuhtivel! conslderablt? (~ pr.·
ject may impact ac two Dr ~ore
separite resources where the impact
HACKl 95-lIA-S
6
!
I
f
!
r.
'. "''f . ~ .-. . -.
.. ~.
n", I>U<posa of the lyttOl'l Avenue Neighbo.-hood Traffic Study is to evaluate and
recommend traffic engineering measures to reduce the impact (volume and speed)
of traffIC 5tlOrtcvttjng thrO<J9h the ne1gl>borhood on Palo Alto ar.d lynO'l Avem;es.
Frve sfternative plans for reducing these impacts are evaluated 10 this Initial Stl.,."Cfy:
AItern;ltives '.2.5.6, en<! 7 (Alternatjves 3 and 4 are not being pursued fooher).
Alternatives '.2.5,6, and 7 are iIIustra:ed end descrill.d in Attachmer>! 1. A
SumrimCY table of char~ter~stic$ and m~acts of the aftematives is. pfovided in
Attadvnent 2,
fvaluatiQn of COOc;C~st Items
In tile foflowing paragrap/ls, an checkflst items ma.'ed 'Maybe" and 'Yes", 2S we~
as $OfTIe marked ·No· ... are e)(plairwd.
Item ita) Air~ This item WSIS mark.ed .. ()()-. Only Alternative 6 irlvooes new stop
s~gns at the Palo Molt-tate --.tersectiorl. The instar!ation of new stop Sigrl$ is
ca!ego<ically exe"",! under the Canfomi. Envitonmental Quant'( Act. Though not
caTculaledl t."e 2dd1tional emissiorls caused by the ma)(imom ad<fitionaJ 550 stOS's
per -day OCCtKTIng wtder Alternative 6 woufd be insignificant corrip.;..~ed to arnbient
emissions caused bV other stop ai'ld traffIC stgnal controrred intersectkh'ls in and
adjacent to the neighborhood. As explained below .. the ir'..creasp.. in vehi1:::1e-mJles
travened because of (out~ changes due 10 traff.e management de'lices is expected'
to be negligible. £ectt aTternative results in the d"rvers"Fo!i of some traffIC from free
flowing neighborhood streets to Zlrterlats that are atreadv congested durlng at least
the peak ct.ri1lTHJte periods. rr.e maximum d""rversioo of trirps 10 a co.-rgested arter~
occurs under Alternative 6, with 2420 daily lIips [.'llCiLKfing 165 PM pea. ho<K
trips] being cflVerted from uncongested streets to University Avenue, Because
t'>ese are not new trills. t1'.e pfimary potent"'! ajr QUant'/' impacts would be Iocanze<l
carbon monoxld'e increases at congested intersectior"ls. University/Mid<1TefieJd is
the most congested inte(sectiOn in the area that Iece~"es the gteatest ~ 0"
IIOpS diverted from the neighborl>ood. The 1989 Citywide lan:$ Use and
Transportation Study fIR included .""lysi. of carbon moocxide impacts at
Universltyil'Jlicl<!lefield under various future development aTternat,,,es, Under an
artemav ....... iI'lclud'ing the one approved by the City Cc""d, car1>on monoxide was
expected to not exceed 7.51l3rts per ,.nHflon, compared!<> t~.e state and federal
standatds of 9.0 parts per million. The cC'frenl PM peak "O'Jf traffoc v<>fume at
l.Jr'WersitylMido1efieid is still soostant!.aliy befow the maximum upon whjch the
-carbon monoxlde analysis was made. Addition of the ma:dmum nu·mber of 165
a<l<fltiooal PM peak tlOU< trips thf~ Ijr.rJersil),lMid<!1efield re~ultln .. !rom
Alternatr\{e 6 is stilt less than the future 'V~u-me -1..Ij)CO which the above carbon
HAUl
; .~
9S-[!A-S
S
,~ :
'.
monoxide determInation was made. In conck;sion, th:s project will oot have a
signifICant impact on air QUant'(.
l:t.imi 12 {a b. c 41. Tran$port" HoCV'CWCi\A?tioo
Yehk:llfar Moyer'O£Ol. Alternatives 2 .. 5 .. and 6 impose some rastrM:ticns on
movement (Owerter .. raised medianl that wouFd cause some c1!""lvers to tJse other
routes than they do now. The i.r';crease h."'I: ~e""Jde-rrliTes travened due to these
restrictoos, 8S a percentage of total ve'hjcle-rru1es traveNed for ,:mV given trip. is
expected to be mtnimar .. as drivers are e)(pectecf to use alternate routes which are
no longer. ur only up to ,about two blocks longer. than the fanner routes. Tum
restrictions are not eXpe<::!ed to lengthen routes .. onJ~ change the intersection at
,,-hich drivers l1'lak.e the fl;f(ected turns. Refer to Circulation section below for a
c!iSC1J$slon cf the impacts of th.se diverted trips,
~. Each traff~ circie wootd resuft in the loss of up to foJ.Jf park~ spaces.
The raised median on Guinda tAfternatrve 6) ffl3y result 'in the toss of 8pproximate:y
Jour spaces. Parldog suppTy is not cr[t;cai in this predominantly sfngle-fa-mi1y
resfdenttaf neighbofhood. $0 the impacts of trns parking toss are expected to be -
mintmaf in the context of the entire neighborhood.
Circulation. The five alternatives j>foykfe .... aricxts levels of traffic diversion. as
estimated in COTLJfTVl 2 of the tabTe in Attachment 2. These diverted trips are
expected to be redlstribtltad on the surrouod1ng streets as indicated by the chcng.es
in daOy 1forumes tADTs' at various locatoos in the figures illustrating the frYe
2!Tternatives (Attacl'vnent 11. in some alterr.afives. streets wit.~n the ne:fghbofhood
experience increases ... traffic volume [e.g .• Seneca aOO Hale)_
The Impact of these increases ;s evaluated with the Tl1lE mex /Traffic In.fusion of
Residentl.! N9ighbo;hood.,_ Thls index is a rroethOO 01 describin9 and measU<'lng
residents' perceptions of the effect of street traffic 00 residential actNiti.es stJCh ;as
wandng .. cycring~ pTaying .. iclteracting with neighbors, and bccfci.n.g a car in and out
of 8 driveway_ The index was deveToged by oe'g?>borhood traffoc maMgement
researchers ... the United States and EnglaOO, and s"",es as a reference tool for
judging tl,. anticipated effect of changes in traffIC volumes. An increase of 0.1 h
"the TtRJ: index., equating to an increase in daily traffIC vo'ume c,f appro:x.imatery 25
perceot", was found to be L'le minimum inc:ease that ts notiCeabTe to the 2verage
resident. A change of 0,2 0.-greater" equating 10 an increase in dallv traffIC
volume of 50 percent or .greater. would definitely be noticed by resiO.ents.
Attachment 3 presents the TiRE indices fOf various (evers of d.ai1V traffIC voTurro€'s.
For most 1ocations tn the five afteri1Otives, ADTs either dec(ease. ()( increase by an
amount that is roOt expe-cted to be noticesb!e to the average residen.t (i.e, the
HACKl 9S-H.I.-S ,
,-
;: .
·-:.<'"-.:.;-.~
r' :-.
change In the TiRE index is less than 0.1). In some blocks for some "rternat""e.
(listed In the fourth column of the table in AnaCMlen! 2, ar'" in the table below],
the increase .... the TiRE Sndex is expecteJ to exceed this mnimurn nottceab-ts \ev-et
LOCATIONS WHERE CHANGE IN TtRE INDEX WOULD EXceED .01
Exlsting APT Wrth Irjffk Managemenl
PIa~ LAhernative1
.Hale between PaT~ AAo and UnhtersitY
Saneca between Palo Ao"lo ,nd Ur.-f ... ersrf'J
Guin6! betNe-en tyttOf'l lind University
~
125
2N
2290
16& Vo,its ". S .. J orlty)
350 tAft 2 only'
2890 lA>' 2 oo/VI
0.15
0.15
0.15
The ~eue on a--.aucer between Pallo Alto Av&r.ue and' Uni ..... r$!ty from 2'470 to 3020 for
AJtM.iative 6-WiliS arroneol)sTv(;ited io CMR:S31:94 fOeo:::ember6. i994! as exceeding the 0.$
CfvHhokl .. wh~. it does not. ·The increa~!! or: WoJfow .Road in Menlo Park is not shown i!l
At:t:Khme,"'II: 1. but is a maximum of 690 ACT 10( Alternative 2 {the same increase as on Middlefield
at PaTa Aha A .... ent!el. N the AOT on V/i1Io..v Road between Mhid'!efield and Yotgl"lway 1 01 ~
25,.200. and on Middffield ~o.ad near Palo Mo Avenue, approximately 1 :',800.1he a--:.c;rea-se of 690
daity trips is subs~.tianv less 'lhan a O. 1 rnc~eitse r. the TtRE t'tdex.
The Increases in the TIRE index 01 0.15 noted in the tabl. above are barely above
the 0.1 minimum change noticeabre to the aV81"age resident. The City of Paro Alto
has not estabfished an-acceptabTe upper limit of increa,o;e in the TtRE index or in
traffic 'Volume:s On residential stre-ets. Notwithstandtr.g~ the srri2D incramen( above
the mln1murn noticeable in t1"o.e above cases would not be consldered to consutute
~ significant impact.
Uniyersity/MJddIaf18id. At s;gt1afi2ed intersectioos~ level of service CLOSt is
avaiJabTe as an OOlCiJ10f of traffiC impact. The urnversfty/Middlefield intersection is
the most j»ngested intersection acfjacent to the lyttoo nejghborhood~ It is
COfisidered to be the ",ateway· intersectk.w1 to OO'Nntown Palo AIto and StanfOfd
t""'om the eas'_ and is the maiD< recipient of traffic <!i •• "ed oot. 01 the
neig/".borhood. TOOs, VniversitYlMid<l!efl<!ld js the best location to evaluate level 01
service impacts of the Lytton neighborhood traffIC managemerot plan. as tabluTated
h the table below. The intersection currently operates at LOS C~ !i.e ... approaching
OJ during the AM and I'M ~a1< houfs. The \eve' <>1 ..,r..;ce is calcu1al~ only fo<
Al!:ernative 6. which represems t~e -'NOt'st case-ti.e ' .. the maximum crversoo .of
traffic from neighborflood' streets to this intersectioo-1. AI!' altematives include
improvement of \'\o'es1'bol.1r.d flow througl'l Middlef:eld/University by means of
restriping the westbo<Jnd leg to add a second thlough lane betwee'l Guinda and
M'ldd'!efleTd~ ThIs impf"ovement provides acJ.ditk>-naJ westbo..,-nd £apaciry t-o absorb
traffIC diverted from neiShOOrhood routes, thus tending te> reduce AM ~ak houf
congestion Of" at ~ast.-tend""mg to offset any inG-rease W1 cor.gestTon due to the
" \
[lACKl -
•
.' -,J .
..;. ,--' .>-~ .
",,-;;--".
, t'
additional cfrverted traffic. Because of r,mited roadway width, a consequence of
this c1Ian{je is that th. number of through tanes in the eastbound direc'ion most be
r~ from the existing two 10 one. In the AM J)<!ak hour. the average eleTay per
vehicle decreases snghtJV due 10 the ac!ditional westbound through Tane. but not
enough I<> Jrnprove the calculated LOS. which remains at C-_ 1,-, the FM peak
period. everage elatay increases sr.glVJy due to the eastbound tane reduction. but
not enough to change the caTclulated lOS. which remains at Co. Thus,
Implementation of t.'le lytt<>n traffIC management pTan will not have a 'isomear,t
Impact at the UniversitylMiddlefleTd IntefSection.
TImI Period
AM Peak Hour
PM PeakHo ....
lEVEL OF SERVICe AT UNIVERSITY IMJDOtEFlElO
Arternative 6
fe/stine "'941
c
C-
With Tral'f"lli 'MjlneQtme,)t Plan
Ind Unr .... er;;;ty A ',renue Restriping
c
e-
Restricted Moyements. As expTained in the te)(t accompanying each alternative,
certa!n traffIC movements within a,'1d adjacent to the neighborhood win no Jon.ger
be possibfe as II consequence of the traffIC management plan ... neither fo(
neighborhood residents l10f non-residents. For exarr.pfe .. Alternatives 1 ~ 2. 6, and ]
incorporate right-tum restrictlor •• from University to ne1ghbo<hood streets. Aft
drivers formerly makklg these turns must find alternate routes. As another
eXBmPTe .. the raised rned"";an on ChaLJCef incorporated in-Al'terllatNes 5 and 6 wHl
'block certain 11Jfns in and out of the neighborhood. In e .... ery case .. t.7).ere is a:ways
an alternate access route avanabTe to/from every point: in tl"'.e .neighbothoex1. As
explaIned above .. the "rease in vehicTe-mJ1es travened as a cesult of thess
restrictions w;lI be negngibTe_
Traffic Ha2srd's. This ltem was checked -maybe-. When traffIC management
devices, and signIng and 5t6pt09 c:na.'1ges are impfemented. causing f'lew~
unexpected maoowers and travel patterns for regufar drivers of a particuTar lOU1e,
the potential exists for increased acc;ctents. until drivers become accust-omed to
the chan{jes. AI !he proposed tral10c management devices and slgilin{j!stripin9
features have been commonly used in PaTo AII<> and neig?-.bo<ing cities. and will be
stgoed and strlp.ecJ according to state standards. and are not expected to Cleate
permaoont traffk.: halard's 10 the general pubtic.
Items 13 fa. b <1 e fl. Pubnc Services
Ponel and fW-e. To vary~ degrees. the tr3ffte managGrTI4iln·t devices lmpede the
movement of emergel')(:Y vehicles. Such vehkles. operatlf"1g in emergency
conc:fttions~ would be able to ms'ke light tums where -00 r~ht tUfn-is pos~ed. and
coufd bypass the raised medians by (r.fjV~ around them. The diverter trl
HACKl
. -
, .
95-[!~-S
II
A1ter.atlve 2 would ".ave a removable bon.rd, or emergency ~-ehicles cov'd choosa
an eftef!late route. facti road bump ard traff}C circle would incrementany slew the
response time of emergertcy vehlcfes. The increase in respO~1Se time for
emergency veh..~res to traverse one, two .. or perhaps three devices within th~
neighborhood, when compared to the t~allength of the response from the point of
origin of the vehicles, woold b<I sman. However, should an emergency v.hicle
oper8!or choose 8 rovte traversing the entire length of Palo Alto and Lytton
Avenues through the neighborhood, the operator woold encounter up to five
devices l.A1'ternative !H .. which. corfectiveTy .. could resL.lrt in a noticeable impact on
response time. As with existlng instartatk>n.s of such devices in Paro Alto .. the toeal
FJrB and Poroce Departments woold bt<:ome knowledgeabre of their locations and
be able to choose routes that rrJnimized the number of these devtces encountered.
thtJs minimizing potential 'W'lCreases in response times.
Maint@Moce of Public facilities, Aft alternatives "'YOUld resuft in increased
maintenance for the new devW=es. The Public \'Vorles Department does not have
funds to extend maintenance coverage to these new devices witho\.f1 a decrease in
maintenance elsewhere. Compared to to-tar Cfty maintenance need's. these few
new devices woWd not be a signifICant increase in maintenance requirements.
eorfectlvety .. hOwever. as traffic management devices continue 10 be insta!'!ed. the
maintenance fxKd~n for an: these devices wiil. at S01l"".e point.. become substantiaf.
and shO<Jld be the subject of a bu<fgel a,,"lysis on a City-wide basis.
Parks and Goyernmental $eryfces. The traffic management devices ...... in cau~
alteration of loutes for vehicles of the Postal Servk:e .. Palo Alto SanitatiGn
Company. City street sweepers, paflc.l'fl8intenance~ and .other occasional
governmental Cot quasi-governmentar services. The impacts on these servk;es are
not expected to be significant. as eQUipment oper8t()(S can setect new routes to
provide access to any iocation.
Jtw 16 Aesthetj,.s. This item was marKed -no-. Nooe of the altematrves will
obstruct a scenic vista or crease an aesthet~arTy offensive site. However .. art
traffIC management devices require aMitional signIng and sometJmes striping.
Road bumps, proposed next 10 Hop"-ins Park in Merr.atives " S, 6, and 7. ,nust
be made very v'Ls!bfe to drivers by means of added traffIC signing and striping.
BecaUSE this area cunently has very fittTe traffIC signing and striping. the road
bumps will be quite noticeable, but will not constitute a sitlniflCant degred2tion of
the scenic qoafity of the a rea.
Item 17 Recreation. The purpose of art the atte..-natives is to reduce the speed and
volume o.f traffic on Palo Alto Aveooe. especiany between Seneca and Chaucer.
Tt"tis is expected to lesult in an knproved environment f-or acijacent Hopkins Park.
cs
HACKl
.. " -.
•
95-f1A-5
12
•
. "
.. '
--< .. -,
EM· .-\1TACRMENT I
ALTERNATIVES
1 , 2,5, 6 AND 7
..
AL lERNA liVE 1
11194
tBo'"" ,.,y,...,,;,g ~-11
lEGEND:
.... £XJS!1NG D'll Y \/CltNE V3'q
338D PROJECTED OA:lY 'IIUluUE
Exming slop signs
(shown Ot>!y in Ihe lylloo
neighbo,1lOo<Iarea)
<> T rarrlC Signals
3550
3380
·
"; :>,-" ;; .
... "<
"-' ."
."LTERNATIVE I
Ahernaove I. is a modified verifoa of Working Group Scenar"" J (descnud in the previous
report 10 !lie Policy ""d Services Committee, CMR:423:94), I<> include an add'itiooal AM
"lUming restriction, as illliSlr3led on !lie map on ille opposing page. To reduce throogh traffic
aJld speeds j" IN: neight>orl100d, !his allern,tive employs AM pen peOOd tun> proh:l>ition,
on ~estOOund Unlvers;'ty at Seneca. Guinda. and Fl.llton, as wen as Ql!merol.lS L-affIC c:al,ning
devices 0::1 Chaucer. Palo ... .rto Avenu::. and Guindi!. To improve traffic flow ~stbo1.:nd
through the Uruversit,)'fMid<ftefield intersection. mus attractir,g an increfl1ent of througb.
traffic off !he Ioca! neighborbood streets, an add'itional westbound t1-.rougb lane win be added
by restriping 10 nimO\o'e one easr;boor.d' tlu-ouglllane. This improvement is common 10 an
:11tematives.
Operatioo and Effedivene»
Table 1 in the main report and: the accoJnpanymg map provide detafls 00 this al:emati"e.
Table I is t1elpruJ ill comparing tfle five a11ematives under cOfisjderalion~ The ana1ysis of
cJlanges i., tfaDy yciumes of Altemative I 11as b€eR revised sTightJy sToct 'it was fast presented
to the Comm.ittee. The additional turs restriction at Unlvers.tty and Senec:t l\as eTIlllinated the
potentlal of an increase in yoTum: 011 Seneca eft.ring the AM peal period .. out ~Ias transferred'
some cl' dtis potential increase SO Haie. The predicted increase on Hale .from J25 fO 165
vehicles per day is considered "' be "noticeable I<> residen"" (based on Ill. TIRE inde.
descnOec! in Table I. fooL'1<lle 3). and is Ille only suc~ location. I. tile overall perspecliye of
!he lower yolumes Illroug~ou! L'le neighborhood produced by ~~is alternative, Ille 2bsolute
increaSe of 40 ve'hkTes per day 00 HaTe is relatively sman.
Of an alternatives COflsidered. Ahemauve J prodoces the least .red'UCtioll in tltrougll trips 00
Ihe inlemaJ streets oIl1le neig"hborbood and .. c~pondingTy. t11e least diversioc !O tlle
slJrroomfing streets (Chaucer. Hamilton.. University. and Mldd1.eneld). Com~lared ~ the
ot1'!er alternatives, k has il reJaiivefy bigb number of [lew speed reduction devices (6
locations}. t1Ius potenti2:lI), red'lk.--lng speeds in more JocatlOriS t'han Ahematlves 2 and 6.
Ponce enforcement vf tfle t.Jrnlng restrictions (3 locarions) wirl probably be necessary. Ia its
revie .... of September 20~ 1994. the Committee· f~k that wis ai1ernarive cf;d n<X .sufficiently
address IDe nejghbortrOOd~s traffJoC concerns..
Cos ESli mate
The estimaTed cost of a trial instanarior. for Ahemalive I is $26,000. The cost of a
permanent instaTIatioo is S4I,t:.:f.Xj, assuming, that the road bumps aoo signs. ('hat -are bistaITed
as part of the trial woold not need" 10 be rep~aced'.
M additional cost of S30,COO is required f<>r reslriping !O create an. additional ",estbound
Ihrougbl lane on Unr..'crsity Avenue at MiddlerJeid Road. The COSl 0( this component is
separnred out because it is an exisling apprQ\led project from tl1e Ckywlde Land Use: and
Transportation Study and stafr aTread'j e~pecrs 10 pursue (unrnng afld implementation as part
01 the 1996-97 Capitallmprovc:menl Program process.
',~ -,
'" " '"" .-.' .
I ..
, "
Al TERNATIVE 2 \ 11194
(SomO .. _~-l)
3550
~* 2e5O
. ..,
I.EGEN~
.". ,25
,.,. UJSTIHa Cl'll Y \IOI.U1oIf r ""'J • "'" PROJ£Crt::o ~ Y'.'Ol~
Existing slop signs
(s",own only in fhe l~on
neigl!bortlOod area)
0 Traffic Signafs ~~
N£CA
me;
100
..... "oY . , " ~ .".., ..
~ ..... '." .. -
~~:'::..3.~~:c2.::...-~_-,:~-:_
ALTERNATIVE 1
. .. : , ,
.-c.--
Alternative 2 is the same as Worldng Group Scenario 2~ and is iIJustrated 00. the map on L~e
"Pl""ing page. To reduce lllrough traffic and .peed. in III. Dejghbor~ood. this a1tern,tive
emp10ys AM pe.a1c period lura protllbitiOns on westbourtd UC'Jversity a~ Guinda and FllHon .. a
diagonal divert.er ·closing automobile accesJ. betweel'\ fafo Alto Avenue and L)'tton~ as ¥r'en as
tr&.fflC calming devices on C1\a~lce.r and G\llnda.. Access. fur bicyCles and .emergency vehides.
through the diverter woold remain:. Westbound flow through t11e UniversitylMidd'1efleld
intersection is improved as descn"bed for Alternative L
QperatiQq and Effecth'eness
Table I and L'"le accompar.ying map provide details on this altemative. The ar.a:y"Sis of
. changes in daily volumes of Alternative 2. "as. beell re ..... tsed stig'htJy since it was last presented.
10 we Olmmittee_ The predicted increase OD Seneca from 270 10 350 vehicle. per d2] is
considered 10 be -noticeable 10 residents.-.. based 00 the TIP.E index. a.nd is th'! oruy sueR
1ocat"ion_ In the over.aTt perspective 0( l~ tou.'er vo1umf'!= throughout t1le neighborhood
produced by l11t"s £l:Jtefl'1alJve. tl1e a~lute increase of 80 \'ehicles per day 00 Seneca seems
relativety sman.
Ahemative 2 provides a. ·meWum" level of througJt trip reduclIoo.~ oom~<lred k:t the other
aJternatives weT. correspondingly. 2t Medium level of Clvmor) 1-0 t1le s ..... rround"ing streets
(Cilaucer .. Hanultoo .. Uni\lersl1:y. and )'£dd1~f.eld), As noted in the prevl0\ls paragrapb~
ho .... ever .. volume L->Crea5es 00 Si..lrTCHlnd'ing streets are no( expected k). be notice;ible.
C-{)mpared to tlle. ot"heF altemativc~ Alternative 2' },as the lowest fJumber of Dew speed
reductiOO. devices. (4 localioos)~ ti1US pOIentiaTIy R:ducing speeds in !ewer Joca600s than the
ether alternaTives considered'. P1.lTice ~nforcement of lJIe rnming: restrictions (2 locations) ",ill
probably be necessary. tA its ff',dew of September 20. )994~ Ole Committee fefi. that tJ-Js
al""t.ernalIvc 'Vi'as ell:ccssive in k:rms v.f traftic diversioG to other streets.
ow Esti rnii:e
The esrimated cost of a tria! instanation lOr" Ahemative 2 is S 17 .. OCO. TI-.e COSf of ..
permanenc instaflarioft is $45 .. ((I()~ 2SSlJming tllar the tread bumps and signs t11at are instaIled
as part 0( III. trial would no! need 10 be re";aced.
Aft additional cost of S.)O,OOO i-s requi.red for resmptng 10 create. an addifiooal westbound
lhroogh lane 0!1 Uruve;s1ty Avenue at MIddlefield R.oad. The cost of t11is compol1ent is
.separafed .out becal!se if: is al1 existing apPfoved project frOID O1e Clty ..... -iCe Land Use and
Transpoftatioo Study and staff alre<.1dy expects k) pursue funding ar.d' impTementa60n as part
d!he ]99&97 Capita! Jmprovemenf Program process.
ALTERNATIVE 5
11194
Existing stop signs
(shown only in the ly!lon
neighborfloo<! area)
o Traffic SigneTs
1800 "r---
810 12$
-:--:-'::;--'--
, (.,
AL TERN.UIVE 5
Description
Alternative 5. illust:-ated or. the map on the opposing page. is a r.ew alternative ~evelope:d by
staff in response 10 tne Committee') olrectkKi. To reduce m,ougl1 tramc and speeds in the
Deighborbood .. thIs al!ernative employs a rnised median OD Chaucer. and numerous traffic
caf.'1'ling devices 00 .PzJo Aho Avenue, Guinda. Fulton, and lytton.. The median OIl Chaucer
a1'so ... ould !4..-'1 as a traffic: -calm.ing devlce. Only ogne rums in and out of the east and' west
le&S. 0( Pa~Q A.lto AVenl(e ""ou.ld bt: possibre at the Pa!o Aho Io..venuelChaucer inten:;,ect~.
Fun acress for bicycles and e.mergency ve:"licles would remain. All movements could be
made al til<: FullDnlLyl"'" trafftc circle and the Guindallylloo "oval". Westbound flo ...
ih.."OUgli the Yllivers1tylM'fddlef..eld in:ersection is improved as descn'bed roc .>\!ternau\le l.
Qpenuioo and Eff:xti veness
Table' and the accompanyir,g mai> provide details on this alternative. The: predicted
increase 00 HaTe from J25 10 J.50 \lehicJes peT day is (;onsidered to be: -noticeable 10-
resi<knts·~ based on the TJRE Lodu.,. and rs tfle om)' such location. Iii. the ove;aT!
perspective olthe Jow~r voTum~s throughoul l11e neig!'ltxxbood produced by this art.emative ..
the ab-:'...o1ule increase of 25 \'elii<:1es per day on Hale Is relatively small.
Ahernative S pro ..... ides a "medium" level of through Lrlp re<fl.!Ction, sTmil~r to Afternatj ... : 2.
and.l. corr.espondingfy medium level of divefiiOQ 10 the sUITOUncflng streets (Olaucer,
Hamilton. Universit)'. and Midcflerlekf). As Doted h lhe pre .. ious paragrapb. however.
volume increases on surrounding streets are nO( elpecled 10 be nOi:k::eabJe. Compared &0 the
other a!tematives .. AHemative S has a retatively Itlg'h ~umber of new speed red\Jction devices
(61ocanons).
Ahernatl\le S SlnKe5 iI: reasor.ab!e balance octweee desired ,,~ume and speed reduction ... ersus
ll.ndesired divers'ioD of t.r.affJC 10 otller streets and IlmitatKJr.s of oeigllbofbood 3-!"'..-USS afld'
intemat circulation. H does 00( require ponce enforcemenl k) be fuTIy eFrect! ..... e) as do lhe
al1erna[ives. with pass: ve tum r-est."ictioos.
The estimated cost ofa tria! instaTIiirjon fOt" Aherna[ive 5 is S44,f.XlO. The cost of a
permanent "'stanauon is St20.(x)o • .2:SSUffilng tllar tf'.e foad humps and signs tl1at are insLlned
os pan of til<: IriaI ,,'oold nOl need 10 tJ.. replaced.
AI! cddiLfonaT cost of S;)O,IXXJ is required rOf re~ping 10 -c-reare an addi6or.al ,.,'tstDound
throlJg~ !.a."1e on Uru'iJeis-ity A\lenue. at Midd1er\eM Rood. The t~ of this component 1S
separated oul 'b«ause it is an existing awroyed project from the Ctt)'wide Land Use and
Transportatio!l Study and staff arready ex~cLs 10 pursue f(mcfing and imp:ementatKlO ilS pan
of t1;.e 199&-97 C;pTur tr.tprovtmenl Progrcm process..
,., .-.
At TERNATIVE 6
, 1/9.(
LEGEND:
lS5(! E:l:ISTING OM Y 1O..lNE C19Q3) ,
Emfir.g slop signs
(sIlown only in !he ly!!on
neighboifiood area)
o TraffIC SignaTs
2260
•• 0
. ,
NE
ALTERN,HIVE 6
QescdpriM
Alternative 6. mustraled 00 the map 00 the opposipg page, is a oew alternallve developed by
starr in ~se iO I"e ComIT.iN .. ', direction. To redu"" through traffi<: and speed. in !he
~;,t.borbood. Ihis aftemative employs fwo raised medians on Chaucer and Gur7'ida~ new stop
signs on Pa!o Aho~"'\ler.ue at Hate. a road btJmp 00 PaTo ..... ho Avenue, Ii tr.lffic circle at i11e
GuiM'alFutloo int. ... ..rsect.ion. a.")d' a f'J.n·t~me ~ig'!'1{ tum res--Ji.ctioo from. v.,:estbound Uni'Verstty
10 Fufton. The mediatiS also would acl as traffIC calmifi3 devkes. Only rigb! turns ill and
001 olll'.., .... and west legs cf Palo Aim Ave""e wDu!d be pozsi1>!e at !he Palo Al'J>
Ave!1ue1O~ucer intersection ...... t the Guinda/lytton l:ltersectio~, t'he rofio'ti'i.ng movements
.... ould be poS$lole: oon.'t-south througb. mO\lements on Guinda. rigf4. turns from Guinda to
LYOona eastbound Lytton througb mo .. 'ement and ngnl turns, and rig!" arrd left turns from
westbound Lytton~ Togethe;; tlJe two raised medians effectively brock most througb tr.amc
a!oog 'the Palo .... lto Avenue-Lyttoil: roule. Fun acce5!. rOC' bkycks and emergency vehk}es.
would remain 21 bofh median 1ocanons. Aft mo .... ements could be made a! the Fulton/Lytton
m.ffic circle. III order fO eliminale .. potential f,:eavy diversior. of throogb traffic from
"a!esrbound Ur-ivers1ty k) r.ortJ'1f>ourxi Fulton. a fun-time right-wm prohibition is proposed.
Weslboond' tkiw L~rou,gb t!Ie Unive,sityiMiddlerJeld inte:~tion is improved as. described for
Alternative i.
Qperation and Effec!5\:en.§i
Table I and' the accompanying map provide detaJls on l1'lis alternative. The pred'icled'
increase on Chau~r from 2410 fO 3020 vehicles per day ~s considered to be -noticeable to
residents-. "based on me T1RE i..,&M .. and is t1le only Stief: location.
Of an afternatives cOIlsidered. AltemaGve 6 produceii the grea:est red'l.'ctkm in througb trips
on [he internal stf"'...ets 0( the neigl1bornood and .. c:orrespontfingly~ the greatest div-ers?oo to the
Surrounding streets (Chaucer. Hamilton. Urtiversj.ty~ and Middlefield). As Doled in tile
previous famgraph .. however, volume incre3se.s on sUTTounding str.eets, other than Olaucer ..
are oot ex~ 10 be noticeable. Co.-npared 10 lhe omer aTternatives, ATtemative 6 ?las. a
mid-rang~ number cl" new speed reduction ~ices {5 JocarlOils}.
The estimated cost ofa trial imtal1atioo $or Ahernative ti is 142.000. The cosz: o!a
ptrm~n! instanarion is SIJO,O:O. assuming that the rood bumps and Sigl-15 .hal are instaIled
as part. olli1e trial ""(Xl!" nct need !O be fepTace<f.
An ad<:fitionat cost: 0( S30.()(X} is. Te~dred foe restrlping k> create ;<1;11 additional wes~bound
~roogh tane.on University Avenue at M~«f1efl-tld ROOld. Tne cost of this component is
5(eparared O4J1 because ir i$ an exi'Sting aprroved project frorn tne C;rywide Larid Use and
Transportation Study and' staff atready expects iO purslJe f;;nding and imptementation as part
ollhc J996-91 Capital Impro .... ement Program process.
. .. ~" .. -:
•
. .. .
AlTERNATNE 7
Hll/4
i.EG€N[}
_ UlSTllI3 OIJlY"""_ ~<l9:l\
J3EIO PROJECTED DA!f.." \ltli.U1t!E
Existing &OP signs
(Sl\0101I only in 1Ile lytlon
neighborhood area)
<) TrfflC Slgr.ais
a,"'cPJNTAlN All
EXISTING
STOPS~NS
AL1'ERNATIVE 1
pesc.rjptioo
Ahernati"ve '. inu::.trate6 on \he map on the opposing page. is 1: new a1temative de-I"e~ by
. staff in re~s.e 10 the Comm:ttee's cfirec[i<lo In September. It is based on Workina: Grocp
Scenario flo but with added tramc calming devices. To reduce t.1trougll traffIC and speeds ir'i
the ncr,hborbood. thIs aJter:1:uive emptoys AM peak pe:ri9d tur.J prol1ibitioos Oil westbound
University at Seneca. Guinda, and Fuiton. as well as [HlmeiOUs. traff>c calming devices on
Cha.uce.r~ Palo Aho Avenue .. Guinda. Fl!Jton. and Lyuon. Westbound flow througb t.l'Je
UclversLty/MiddJefield in;en:(;ction is tmproved as descooed for },,,hernative I.
TabJe I and tlie ac:compailymg m.llp provide details 00 this alTerna ti .... c. The predicted
increase on HaTe fr{Jm J2510 Hi5 vehicles per day is coos~cfered' 10 be "notkeable 10
residents-ba.sed 011 the TlRE index .. and is (he orJy such Iocitrioo s~a""'!1 on tTie .FT12p.
f¥.Iwe .. 'er .. in lhe o ... ·erah perspective of t11e lower \'oiumes IT:raugho-.Jt the l1eighborhoo.1
produced by this altem'1tive, the absolu~e lncrease of 40 vehicfes. per day {In Hale tS
relali vely smaiL
~""'hernarlve 1.reduces. sTigfll1y more 'lhroogh trl~.OO 1M' ImemaI streelS of the neith!>or:TIood
lhatl does Alternative J. and 15 ~Im in frle-"low-calegory compared to the other alternatives.
As socii. if produces one 0( the least jncrea~s of traffK: on the s.urr.a:.mding Sl:reets. (Oaocer.
Hamilton-. Universtty. and ).fiddlerleld). LI has the hTgl1est number of oew speed .reductlOtl
devices (1 Jocations) of al1 l"he aTk'm4lTives .. ~hus po!l!ntiany reducing speeds in more locations
t.~a.'1 any .other a.l:emi;l:Li~es." PoTk:c cnfw.cement of the rumTng restrictions (l locations) 'Il·ilJ
probably be. c~"'ri.
Coo Estimate
The e...cfimated cost of 2: trial inslanaflOO for Al!emat';·ve 7 1-5 S36,OCJI). The cost of i!I:
permanent instanatiOa is S! 0 I,COO. assuming that ;he road bumps and signs that are instaned
:as part of the trial woo Id nO! need to be repf.&ed"
Ar! additional ~ Of S)(),{)(X) l'S required for resLi"ping to Cre.a!e an additiona1 weslbounc
throug1l lane 00 Uciversity Avenue at Midd1efleld Road. The.c~ of this com.ponent is
separat-:d out ~us.e it is an existing approved project frllm the C~'ide Land Use and
Transportation Study and st2:ff already expec\$:O pursue funding and imptemeulaoon 2:S pan
of If I.e l~97 Capital rmprovemen. Program process.
" ..... :
, '
\
\
.'
"
-, .',-'
"
~,
\"
/
/
i
-,/
v""~ ___ '·_._ ~ __ ... ~ __
Notes:
L
2.
3.
4,
TABI.!> "
EVALUATION OF AJ..TllRNATIVBS
1nlorior neighborhood .'tcul.tion blooko(!, Tum .... trlt6on
onfor<:ement neO(!oo at 2 location"
This anolysis (100. not InClude (rip' on Ine petiphel'3lnoighoorkOO<! streets "r C~."eer. Ullive ... ity. ot Mid<Ucfield,
Speed reduction loc:ation, lntlude cirde!, oivert_en, 'tai;ed medmnt. new Slop signs, and bumps.
The minimum noti<;oable ir't(;~se in volume is base\1 on an incru.se in the TIRB index of at leut 0.1, rtp~nti"g 1\
percentage incrt'''' .. of .ppro~im.lcly 24 perQ(lnt or more, The Trame Infu,;oo on Re,ideolialEnvironmen'$ index i, •
reprelenlation o( a resident's pe.-:eption of tM .(fe~t 0( tra(lie on typical "",(ivitio" that ""idents engage in on their locAl "Ne". The high.r the exi"ing volume, th. g .... ,et the incro. .. Ihat ca" occur before i( becomes notieeable \0 tho average
regidel"lt.
Eoch allemM;v, will increase maintenance r"'lui ... men'~, Public Work. is 001 currently ,flIffed for tM additional workload,
cs: 3115195
"" :; ,
:l ,
r")
;Ii
''I' ...
rz1
'" ...
..... ~~-:-~,~--......-...~.
. ;""
.\
> '.',:,
. ;', '
',.,.'
;:
c "
, '
}
•
'.~-, .
, ..
" -'~-.'
I .
EIA • A IT ACHMENT 3
TIRE huJa fable
MIn.iltlum ~ib' Vo'!ume Increase 10 lrodJ,S:
E>Cstr", Volume a.1 Cbange 1.2 Qanee Ita!!,. (Vehle"") TIRE in Ole TIRE in the TIRE
PqDnl. Jndex Index inder;
29-35 IS +6 +15
36-44 1.6 +8 +20
4S-56 1.1 +10 +25
57-70 1.8 +1] +32
71-89 1.9 +17 i-4]
90-110 2'() +22 +52
111·140 2.1 +29 +65
141,180 2.2 +40 +80
181-220 1.3 +52 +100
221·280 2.4 +65 +125
281·350 2.S +79 +160
351-450 U; +94 +205
451·560 2.1 +114 +260
561-710 2.8 +140 +330
111-890 . 2.9 +170 HI5
891-],100 3.(1 +220 +520
1,101-1,400 3.1 +290 +650
1,401-1,BOO 3.2 +380 +BOO
1,801-2,200 3.3 +500 +1,000
2.201·2,800 14 +650 +1.300
2,801-3,500 1.5 +825 +l,?OO
3,501-4,500 3.6 +1,025 +2.200
4,501-5,600 3.1 +1,250 +2,BOO
5,601-7,lCO 3.8 +1,500 +3.500
1.J01-8,900 3.9 +1,800 +4,300
B,9OI·l1,OOO C.O +2,300 +S.lOO
11,001-14,000 4.1 +1,000 +6,500
14,001-18,000 4.2 +4~()(x} +8,000
18,001·2.2,000 4.3 +5,200 +10,000
2.2,001·28,000 4.4 +6,600 +13,000
28,001-35,000 CS +S.200 +17,000
35,001-45,000 (./, +10,000 +22.000
4j,ool·56,ooo 4.1 +!2.2OO +28,000
56,001-71,000 C.8 +l4,BOO +35,000
71,001-89,000 U +18,000 +43,000
80= Goodrick Traffic Group
T1ltE is Ii awnericaf representation of • resKrcnt ~I perceptiOn of the effect of .street t.raffK: Oil
activfdes I1d. as wa!Jcing, eyding and playing. aDd on daily lasb suc'h IS manclNeriDg In
automobilt Out ol I r-elId'entiat dm"e'Nay. The acronym lor-'TraffIC IrJusioo. on Residectid
EIMronmes ... • TIRE is "'l"O<Sed by iodcc .. r_ th., range from ",ro, ,epr=nUr., Ill. least
effect of uaffic.. \0 five, representing the ~erC$t cffe..-c
I o
Very
Low
I 4
Very
HJgb
I
5
· ATIACHME.''T 3
~ City of Palo Alto W __ City Manager's Summary Report
TO:
ATTENTION:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Policy and ServicEs Commitl~ 2
FROM: CIn:' MANAGER DEPARTME!\"f: Transportation
Divislon
AGENDA DATE: September 19, 1~4 CMR: 424:94
SUBJECT: Lytton A .. "ue Neigbborhood Tram" Study
10 December 1992, che Council <!irecled stall' 10 work with residents of die Lytton
Avenue neighborhood 10 evaluate and report back 10 che Council regarding appropriate
Sleps 10 be taken. if any, 10 reduc<: !he impacl of traffic shortcutting through the
neighbornood on PlIo AltoAvenuelLyttOll Avenue via the Pope/CIIau= bridge. Staff
has cjeveloped alternative actions 10 .ddress !he impact of traffic sbort cutting throogh !he
neighborhood on ?alo. Alto Avenue/Lyttoo Avenue vi. the PopeiOlaocer bridge.
RF.COMMElIolMTIQNS
Slaff recommeoo. Iilal Ihls report be forwarded 10 the Policy .nd Servkes Committee for
its conside:.tioo and further <fxreclion regarding sdditional Slcps for staff 10 pursue.
Possible options include; (a) • trial implementation of an alternative; (b) the permanent
insl8!lation 01 an alternative; (c) no further work; or (d) some other course oIaclion.
Eaell of tile alternatives has positive and negative features, and support and oppositicn
within che community. Technically, there is DO clear best a1ternat.";. and Ihls item is
being forwarded 10 the Polic)' and Services Committee wltl.oul • staff recommended
course of action.
POUCY IMPLICATIONS
The actions considered in l1!is report represent implementation of existing policies
(i.e. Comprehensive PI.n Transportatioo Policy 4; Reduce tJo.roogb traffic 011 residential
sL<ee!s) and &> 001 involve any new policy directicn.
hjr. I of"
,. .. -
" . '
txEOmyE SUMMARY
Tbe study finding. indica'e that safety and speeding corn:erns, within !he .tud~ area, are
not unusual fcc companble streets within Palo Aho. However. the findings also suggest
Ihat there is a substantial amoun< of cu! Ihrough traffic ... lihln L'le neighlxxilood, and that
d>e potential for mitig.ti ng Ihrougll traffic 00 some of the streets mO<t affec!ed does .xi s!.
From a larger set of initial alterrultives, the study p<occss ""vI"cd 10 !he following four:
AIU"U,lb. IJ
AIUnuJ/ivt U
Install traffic road bumps and (l(her calming devices (circle.,
chokers); limit morning turns 00 University at Guinda and Fulton;
and add I second we slbrnmd lane on U oj versity near M"xI<I1ef'.ekt
Install I diverlcr al Senec. and Palo Alto Avenue; install traffic
calming devices; limIt morning 'urns 00 Unlvtlsit), at Guinda and
Fulton; and add • second westbound lane on University near
M"xI<I1efield.
Close the P<>pelCbaocer Bridge 10 through vehk"lar traffic. but
Inaintain access for emergency vehides~ pedestrians and bicyclists.
Alternative I addresses speeding. but no! Ihrough traffic ,.ithin !he neigbborllood; and
while Alrerratives 2 and 3 address the current through traffic concerft, "!rem.live 2 shifts
• substantial amount of tbougb traffic 10 (l(her streets and Alternalive 3 does not have
support;o !he r.eighbo<hood cc elsewhere. Allernative 4 .. 'ould no! cause any changes
from existing coodioons.
'The tiscaI impact of this r .. oject ranges from SO!o $26,000 for a !emporary iJlstallalion
and up 10 S86,OOO for • permanent ... tan.lion, depending upon wbat course of action i!
pursued. At tl'-.e present lime. tbere is i'JO funding .established 10 implement these
alternatives. on either I trial or permanent basis.
'. ,
~QNMF.NTAL A~'T
AA Environmental Assessmenl will be prepMed prio; 10 Coo nciI action. based upon
Polky and Service. Committee recommendation 10 !he Council.
PREPARED BY: Ash"" Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~ S~
Kenneth R. &hreiber. Director 0( Planning
100 CommuJ"'jty Environment
CITY """*"" ..,..,OV." ~ ~~ 55;slanl City Ma!lllger
:~: ~-.. '-
-<
SlJBJECT: Lytton A .... ue Neighborltood Traffk Study
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff rewmmends !hI! this report be ~"""arded \0 !he Poticy and Se .... ices Committee fcc
its <:oosideAtion and funher Ol!"'---tio<l regardi"g additional s"'ps fo< staff \0 1"1nUe.
Possible options include: (a). tria! implementation of an alternative; (Il) the permanent
installation of an alternative; (e) 00 funher work; or (d) some other course of OCL"".
BACKGTsQL'NP
In Derember 1992. t!:e Council OlJ"e..""led .talf \0 work with residents <Jf the Lyttoo
Avefille ocighborhood '" evaluale and report bad: \0 ~"" eoonciJ regarding appropriate
step" \0 be taken. if any. :0 .... .duce tJ-.e impact of traffi<: short cutting lhroug1l. !he
neighbocbood OIl Palo Alto Avenue/Lytton Avenue via the Pope/Chaucer bridge. In
response 10 Cooncil direcoo.. altunative actions \0 address LIJe impact <Jf tnffi<:
shortcutting Ihrougl; the neighbo<bood on P.lo Alto Avenue/Lytton Avenue vi. !he
PopelChaucer bridge, ~.ave bee. developed.
Residents of the 800 block of LytlOO e~pre.sed roncems reg-..rding the amNn! and speed
<Jf daily tn.ffi<:, pointing out tna! safety, quiet, and comfort of their neigliborhood "'as
being comp<omised. Rel.u~e1l' small selbach resulting in dose proximity of the boo"",
10 !he streel, and the prevalent on-streel parki ng on bo!ll sides of L;e street were cited as
conditions which intensiF.ed their roncerns.
royer IMPLICATIONS
The aclions considered in Utis report rep<esenl implemen!l!tion <Jf «isting City policies
(i.e. Comprebensive i'lan Tl1!nsportati"" Policy 4: Reduce througb traffic OIl residential
.!reels) and do DOl involve any new polley direction.
DlSCllSSION
The study one. a bounded by Palo All<> Avenue, Middlefield Road, University Avenue
and Cba"cer S!reet (see Figure I). Ch.ucer. between Palo Aho A venue and University;
Guinda. betweeB University and L)ItIOll; and Lytton, between Guinda and Middlefield.
are 36 feet wide and are classified as coIIeckJr streets in !he City's Compre:"'"s;". Plan.
All o3>er s!reels in \he study ar"" are local streets.
Da!a Co!1ection. An.alysi. and Problem ldentificati<m
TraflK: vo!u~: Twent)··four hour Lraffic volumes were measured in February and
Marel. of 1993, at 12 !ocatioos within the study area. In addition, <:oonts were taken on
University Avenue, Chaucer sooth of University, and at two k'Catioos on Hamilton. to
'.:.
r-----------------------------------------,
FIGURE 1. LYTTON M:IGHBORHOOD -Ivea Map
evaluate impacts of contrOl measure implemenlation. if any. The measured volumes, ~
oowd in \he CMR:554:93 Statu. Report, October 21, 1993, (see Attachment F) are
romjlarable 10 oilier local residential streets witllin \he City.
Througb TraffIC: In May 1993, a license plate matching survey was conducted as 2
means 10 assess Ille level <>f throoS" trafm:. The results indicated tha! through trafflC
occounEe<1 r", 35 10 go percent of !he trafm: 00 the neighOOrbood streels (see Table I).
1ft comparison, the Ev~green Park neigoborbood (studied in the 1980» carried
approximately 44 percent tllrougb traffic. Chaucer, the 400 block of Guinda. \he 900 and
iOOO blocks of Palo Alto Aveolre and L)'Itoo e'per.enoe most of the neighOOrhooJ
tllroogh traffic (see Figure 2)_ As previoosly ooteJ. CIl.acer. mi. section of Guinda aoJ
the 100 blocl of Lytton are colle"""", b;J\ the 800 block of Lyttoo ,oJ the 900 and 1000
blocks of Palo Alto A venue are local streets.
The findings indicate the .se of Guinda/Lyl1on as an .warent altem.aye 1<> traveling
through tile UniversirylMiddlefiek! inlersecaoo and support the obvious llSO cf Chaucer
Pur-5 ol1.9
'.--_/
T .... stE J. THROUGH TRAFFIC SURVEY
IS • connector between Menlo
Park and University and
Hamilton Avenue,. .... AU hill (Uo.9.lO amJ !'!II Pal: ' •• ~:JO~
Speed Survey.: Speeds,
.mt:aSured at six locations within
!he study area, in<f ....... ted 85t"
percentile ranging frOOl 25 mpb
!o 32 mp/l (= Attachment A).
II is ool uncommon (or the 85th
percentile .peed 10 be S 10 ! 0
mp/l higher thaD the post.. .. d
speed limits, or the 25 mph
prima facia speed finUt in effe<-1
OIl local residential streets.
a",,·J.lm~)
"'~.~o:t
vw..cnilJl''C':ha"".,r
V:tiKnit:IRor.
tl'1tl"./.mit)o~
trl'.i.~I(M~
tl":1iw~I1'"Wlot:
~1Hk!i'L)'UOCI
iro66d1efu:ktJ'£vudl
y>lt.hflt'\.Ill"t.k. AkQ;
T-.I """" .. T,.,. T~
• w e.,
»' ". ,. I>
" ,. ,.. ,1<
" II
"" '" II S>
...a.. ..lL
2."" un
~; T"'" ",.,.,. ....... ,''' T..,. """" .. ., '" .... ..
00 4iJ ,: ... '" ,. ,. " " lot )7 '" '" ~ 1
m ,., ,. ,. .. ,. '" '" '" ." ,.
., 96 5> " ..A. 3L JL -A.
&4 I.«l:! , .... ..
Despite this understanding, some residents of the neighborl>ood have reiterated tIleir
ronrem that speeding is • problem, give" the width oflhe streets and Il,e presell"..e 01' on
street parking.
Aaicleots: A review of records 01' reponed accidents for • fi'Ve year period did ool
indkate problems at any specific Ioc.ti<.", within L'>e study area.
Summar}: While speeds in the neigl;borl>ood are similar 10, or lower thar.. OIhec Palo
Aho neighborlloods, the neighoornooo does experience. substantia! amount oflhroogh
traff)C.
Worl<in~ Groyp Mee!inas
IR Aug" .... t 1993,. Ietler was mailed 10 the residents 01'''''' neigbborl:ood 10 inform them
01' the study and to invite thnse interested, to be part 01' a working grOU}l (see Attacbrnenl
B). Tbe working group, initially with II members, was comprised of residents frOiD
streets lhrougllout the neigbborbood.
DarreH Senatar
C.thi Lehrberg
Rebecca McKinney
Tom Nolan
Betty Lin
Yar~ Maslak
goo Block l ynoo Lind. Brown
lCOO Block University Dan Ledford
400 Block Hale Ma..-k Bowman
800 Block Lytton Asbol: Aggarwal
800 Block Lytton David Veg'
400 Block Guind.
Other individuals also attended some 01' the meetings.
400 Block fulton
800 Block Pale Mo
800 Bloclc L ytlOG
T ransp;xUtlon Division
Transportation Division
I
FIGUF.E2. STltEEfS.WITH MOST OF THROUGH TRAFFIC
I'sge 7 or 19
.,
IB!he 1i."'Sl ~ling, staff presenled tlle gf()Up wi!h tlle data ilial ~ad beeD~. I.
a. effort !o define tlle issue, some members indicated !hal lraffie volume, willt its
=ultanl DO!se aod impact 10 tll< quality 0( fife, was the primary concern; 0Ihers indicaled
that speedi.,g and the safely 0( residenlS relaled 10 speeding, was Ihe primary «)ocen!;
aoo yet <>Chers indkaled tJ..II whik tm,y apprecialed Ihe concerns of residents living 011
the busle, streeIs, II ",as lheir hope thai lny conlrol measures would not result in changes
on lheir streets. Members were infooned 0( differe", types of control measures llIal
might be pursued, .nd the cocrospending benefits, concerns, and dr.whcks ",·hich might
be •• peeIed from th::ir implementatY.m.
Based on inpul received at Ihe first meeting, staff developed seveD possible conlrol
n>eas'Jre altern.atives. AI tlle secood meeting, eac;' 0( llIese alternatives was thoroughJy
<fISCussed .nd information was distnbufed so tIlOI me robers coold consider tIlem in fur.lter
detail prior IG Ihe nexl meeting. AI tlle Ihird meeting, tlle working group identified two
"".ernatives foc furtner cor.<ideratioo and presenlation il • neighborhood public meeting.
Public Meeting' As a result of Wee worldng group Oleetings. two alternatives, one
emphasizing a diYertot at Seneca and Palo .... Jro AYenue, and she second emphasizing road
""mps, were presented al the N""ember 1993 neighborhood meeting. Over 50 pe;>ple
attonded tlle meeting, Including residents from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Support
for the two ~narios was divided. There: ,,"'ere recom~ndations f« variations, and there
was abo I desire' among some to maintain the status quo. See Attachment C for complete
meeting commerJls.
WorIdng Group RerommendatioD: In January 1994, tJo.e worlcing group bel<! its fourtll
meeting 10 <fisc.uss the input received at the public meeting. It was their opinion that a
coosensus would not be reacbed. Assueb, tIley decided not 10 meet again, """
recommended thai staff continue 10 evaluale tlle h"o .Iternalives, along with IIle possible
closure 0( the PopelChaucer Bridge.
As requesle.d by tlle wocling group, staff further evaluated Ihe two alternatives presented 0' tlle November 1993 public meeting and tlle possible closure of tile PopelChaucer
Bridge. Maintaining Ihe stalus quo was also evaluated. The following are
.ummarizations ant! maps (see Figures 1 and 4) 0( each of tOO rQ<Jr alternatives.
CMR;4~:'14
!nsta!l traffic ,,,,,d bumps and ether n1mlng devices (circles,
chokers); limit morning rums on University al Guinda and Fulton;
ant! acid a second westbound lane on Uniyersity noar Middlefield.
Paae I oILJ
-: ,~.
IIlltmalive IJ
AlIe",aJive 13
Install 0 c!iver1er at Seneca ond Palo Alto Avenue; install traffic
calming devices; limit morning lurns O!> University .t Guinda ond
Fulton; and add I second westbound lane on Uruvc-rsity near
Middlefield.
Close !he Popc:lChaueer Bridge 10 through vehicular traffic, bUI
maintaiA. access for emergency ve'hides~ pedestrians. and bkydists.
Maintai 0 !he status quo.
WOflP:;ING GROUP
SCENIIRIC ~1
FIGURE 3. ALTERNATIVE SCENARlOS
Issues 800 Impa.&1s
While eadl of !he tim three alternatives has some benefits, it sk'Jld also be recognized
that implemenl.1fion of anyone of them will have some associated impacts. Issues
include .. but are DOl: fil1"'.ited 10, the effectiveness d measures k) slow and reduce the
amount of traffic, diversion of traffic to other streets atready experlefk..; ng hig'her volumes
of traffic and 10 o!her stree's !\OW eKporiencing low volumes of traffic, Io5s of on-street
parldng, access 10 .nd (rom Lie neighborhood I;y residents, ac.;ess through the
neighbornood by Don-resideDts, costs of installing and maintaining devices, and the
aeslhe6cs of !he devices.
h:e' of I'
. -
'. ". .;' .:.-: " •. --"-i,
I
.-
f
weillI': IfHil aAOIJ P
fCElUfllO '1
WOJlICIN3 GROUP
SCENA~.O 113
IlliDGE CLOSURE
FIGURE 4_ .. ..LTERNATlVE SCENAJtIOS
,-
Pag. II 0( U
.1;. J-. .
-.
Of tbe5e issues, the diversion 0( lraffi<: to o:her streets is the gre>lesl concern to many
re.idenl! within the neigbbornood. Proje-cted volumes noted in Figur~s 3 and 4 are based
CD existing travel patterns and anlieipated changes 10 these lr1l vel pat'oems, due 10 the
imp'ementafioo of the measures 0( each alternative. The following points bighfight this
t'Sue as wen as the, ot.'>er issues and impacts de",ribe~ above.
• Should calm (slow) lrllfflC.
• Will not substantially shift traff.e 10 otl-.er streets,
• Maintains full access 10 the PopelCbaucer Bridge.
• Cut-through tn£fic Yia Uruve"it)' 10 Guinda to Lytton can be ~uced, but would
likely "''1uire stronger police presence.
• May discourage some cut-tr.rough tra,el ~'1rough the study area, but not to the extent
desired by some residents of Palo Alto and L yttOQ avenues.
• Bumps and related sig"s are not aestheti<:aUy pleasing.
• Tempo<ary bump designs do nOi exist. l11erefore, any trial implementation 0( this
"",nati<> WIll require install alion of foo r or five permanent type bumps.
.. Upkeep 0( the devices, signs, and striping will increase the City's maintenance
worldoad.
• Achieves tralne reduction desired by many residents on Palo Alto and Lytton
avenues, by essendally eliminating east-west cut-through traffic betweea the
P<>peIChaucer bridge and Lytton Avenue.
• A temponil)' divel1er, installed during a t,ial implementation period, .. 'oold cost
approximately $2,000.
• Despite sign restrictions, cut-through lr1lffi<: vi. University 10 Guinda 10 Lytton is
1i1:et)' k) increase, urness there is a very strong, ongoi.ng police pcesence.
• Direct access t.-x the study area residents .. via LyUonIPalo Ah-o avenues frorn west of
Seneca 10 the Pope!C1>.ucer Bridge, ",111 00( be maintained.
• Diverts more traffloC 10 other neighbcrbood streets than a oy other scenario.
Neighborhood streets which would 6kely experience more traffIC inclu,," Daucer,
Seneca, and Guinda, Univ"",ity, MiddlefJeld, and Evere!! west 0( Middlefield may
also experience inneased traffIC volumes.
• Physically separates tile study or .. at Seneca, and limits vehicular tn<vel .... ithin the
neigbborbood by residents.
• Fun impfementatk-m 0( this scenario is the most costly.
• Diver1er and associated sigos may not be .,,'helie.Oy pleasing.
• Upkeep of the devices, signs, aoo striping will incre<'L~ the City's maintenance
workload.
.~,~,. ".
,", ..
..~/
,-,... -.
>r;'-.
,-:
-;:.' .-~:3!j&:.>.::i:':~S:~.0Q,.2~_c.,,·;iL~ i,.:...::l.' H~·. ,,'J ;'c0~~
All.rruIliv. 3 • Closvn: Df tile l'ope:a.aucer Br'.4gc
• Achieves Intffic reductio. desired by many residents on Palo Aho anJ Lylloo
avenues.
• Significantly reduces b'aflk on Chaucer.
• Traffic will increase within the neigbborhood on Guinda and Seneca, and will
p<J<sibly increase on Middlefield and Everett west of MiddleEoeld.
• This is the most ;:!rasti<: control ITle>.,ure. It should not be pursued witho"t It",
support of Menlo Park.
• Completely elilY'jnates study area residents' access 10 and from the PopeICbauce(
Bridge.
• nu. is the least costly of the first three scenarios.
• A lemponuy barrier, installed during • t...w implementation period. would cost
approJcimalely n,ooo.
• EveD if designed 10 anow for access by emer~ency vehkles, • bamer may impact
responses fO<" mutua] aid betwOOD Menlo Parl<, East Palo Alto and Palo Alto.
• UJ>lr.~ of the barrier and 1I1e signs "ill iocrea..<e the City's main1¢nance worldoad.
• Some residents hl"e suggested that closure could be inc1u&.-d as part of aa ""eraIl
proje<.'t 10 convert the entire bridge area into a parle.
Allerrulli •• ., -Jfallllai .. /lit Stalfl. Quo.
• T raffle will no( be diverted '" odler streas.
• Access by the stud) area resiclents 10 and from the PopelCbaucer Bridge .. -ill be
maictained .
• 1bere are 00 new costs associated with maintaining current conditions.
• Does no< address the conce,", related 10 vehicular "o!urnes and speeds.
OJmmoIJ To A11 Allet7U1li •• s -Atfd Il Meont! West1Jound Lane 011 UtJiversity
A.e"". at Middlefield
• Can be implemented independently of otI1er control measures !O be consiclered.
• Improvements 10 .. esthou nd capacity on U ro"ers;!), at Middlefield , may reduce desire
of some motorists 10 sborlcut through the ne;ghbornood, especially during the
morning commu1e.
• Meeting: comments and survey responses indicate support for this measure.
• This measure was included in the Citywme Land Use and Trar.sportatioo St""y
approved by the Council.
• Implemenling this measure ",OtIM cost apprc:dmately S30JOO.
• lte.uits in reductioo of eastbound through 1011<:. 00 University Avenue, approaching
Middlefield, from two to one.
Page 12 01"
" . .
-. "
-. -;, .' \ '
<':',1-
:,-.
To ensur. thai each residenl bad an opportunity 10 pc,wide input, staff coooUC'.ed • post
~d survey. A IeU •. f, along with alX"l card. was dist..wuted to all reshlents within the
stJdy area (see AtJachmenl D) in February 1994. The leiter iocluded • summary of the
study to dale and ide ntifIed the foo r allemati ves noted abov., along with rn aps detruling
each rorre'ponding measure and the • .osting and pcojeclM traffic.
Ninety-two 0{ L"-' or", hundred and seventy·one cards (54 %) were returned from (}.., area
residents. "Three oMition.1l cards (roil' other.> oulside of the sludy area and two !etten
were also received. A summary of dIe responses by block. along with each comment
re«:ived, is included in Attl!cltmenl E. Tab!e 2 below summarizes all of the response.
received from w.Utin the neighboi'hood for each of th. [our a.'1ernatives.
TABLE 2. NEIGHBORHOC){) SURVEY RESPONSES
Scena.~ YES
NO Responses I Total , 0(
Not Indicating Cards Responses Responses. YES or NO St:bUlitted
I 37 (40%) 38 (4! ") 11 92
1 41~51!tJ 35 (JS%) 10 92
3 2~ (28%) 38 (41 %) 28 92
4 28 (30%) 3~ (42%) 25 92
No«: thai wbile Alteenarive 2 received majority support, it was not ove",'be.lrI'jng. The
map on Figure S identifies responses by location. Wltile tJ-.ere is significant support for
A1ternauve 2 frorn residents in fue 800 block 0{ Lytton, • significant majority o{resid<nts
on Chau.:er and Guinda favor other alternatives.
OIlier Suggestions R..,.,i •• d: Post card commenls iocluded the fQaov.ing suggestions,
not necessarily related to !he foor alternatives presenled:
• Install "NOT A THROUGH STREET" sigD at en~ .... nces \0 Ihe neighborhood.
• Implement turn reslri.:1ions \0 Guinda and Full"" from University, regardless 0{
scenario pursued.
• Try restricting througb traffic with signs firs!. If it works •• se 0{ pbyskal measures
-cao be avoided.
a Roilier Iilan installing a dive"'",r, try diverting It.me from Ole 800 Block of Lytton
by installing a 'l.EFT TUR1II ONLY" sign al Senecl.
".--T-·-----" . -~, •• ,
ht:< 13 of 11
, ,
• ~apotl:e.[. RECI: ~t.D .a.u:a 6MPUI
e .' • II
FIGURE S. SUlI.VEY lI.ESPONSES FROM STUDY AREA
• Bumps should be installed in ll,e 400 Block of Fulton.
• Convert sonle streets 10 one-way .operation.
. ,""
c_ ~.'"> .
• lnsIalI an additional street fight on Palo Alto Avenue between Hale and Seneca.
• Instan the diverter aI Palo Alto Avenue and ChalK'er (close ""cess 10 Palo Alto
... venue).
• Install. second .. e,tboond tl-Joogb lane on University regardless of scenario pursued.
• Do not i'lStall • circ;e. Having circles at both ends of IN.! bridge is r.diculous.
SW'Vt, Summary: As was the case ..,ith the working group and those present at t}.e
neighbort.ood meeting, the results of the survey indieate !hat • consensus did nO{ exist
The results of the post card survey ~Jghligblllle diversity of opinion.
The foDowing departments were requested ~ review each of the foul' alternatives and 10
comment on the potential Unpac110 their cperations, due 10 the implementari<>a of eack
'lIlternative.
Page 14 ol a
...
(I) Circles are preferred over !he use of diver!en, barriers ()I" road bumps.
Poliu Department:
(I) Due \0 !he lirni!e<l Dumber of police calls for this area, installation of speed bump$
Me a"""p!3!>Ie.
(2) Currelll traffic boclrup "" University .t Middlefield is excessive. Stro .... gly supports
adding. second w .. rbound ~'trougb lane on Univ=il).
(3) Morr';ng lura restrictions (rom Universiry \0 Guinda and Fulton ",ill not be
effective ""thoo! daily enforcement, \0 which the DeparL'llenl cannot COOlmit.
(01) Wlule. diverler is likely 10 cause incoovenience 10 reshlenls west of the dive&!",
the impact 10 Police opentior.s woule! not be signlfieant.
(5) Reduction i. traffIC, as projected with !he closing of the bridge, is an advantage.
However, closing the b<Y.lge m'1 impact response time f« mutual aid betweeQ
Menlo Puk. East Palo Allo. and Palo Alto.
Public Worl« Department'
(I) . Closing !he b<Y.lge is til. easiest of the first tIlree allernatives \0 implement.
(2} Eacl! ofille first lhree alternatives will increase maintenance requirements. Public
Worb is not currenfly Stllfied for additional worlcload.
(3) Supports adding a second we.toouncllar", to University at Middlefield. Befieves
Ibat improved a.1erial perform.nce will help 10 alleviate problem. on Ioc<II .!reets.
(4) t. reference \0 Alternative I. projected volumes &> no( indicale • substantial
reduction in traftk. Cost of implemenJation and maintenance. borne by the Ci:y.
may oegale benef.ts 10 tile residents derived from c.lming devices.
Palo Aha Postmaster:
(l) Did 001 respond 10 r~'luest for input.
Palo Aho SanitaOOo Company (i' ASCO):
(I) General belid Illa! the", will be no major problems t" their openoo..s.
(2) Most oftlleir trucks can negotiate !he iype of barriers currently in pI.ce in College
Terrace area.
(3) Most bump$ will not hamper \lIeir operotioos.
',",--
· .
'. <
City or Menlo Park:
The City of Menlo Park r=ntly implemented temponl)' traffic mitigation measures in
Ibc Willo"". neighborhood, located north of S<n Francisquito Creek, as Phase 1 of.
proposed two-part snldy. The Willow. neighborhood connects ",iill the Lytton
neigbborhood vi. the Pope1Cbaucer Bridge; lIlitig.OOn measures, therefore, may o.ffect
Ir&ffic 1<>, from. and Ihroogh Ibc Lyttoo neighborhood. Tho mitigation measure, installed
ooude chokers and circles at various Iocalioos, including a ci,<:1e .1 the i nlersecOOn of
Woodland and Pope located at the north side of Ibe PopelCbaocer Bridge.
Dats obIained in urly November 1993, prior 10 i~mentation of !he mitigation
measures, irKf>ea!ed Iraf!k volm!"",s ""r",,' the !Jri.jge 10 be J,S5() vehicles per day. To
assess potenlial impacts 10 traffIC from the mitigatioo measures (several month. after
imp!c,mentation), traffic volumes were measured in April 1994. Data reflected traffic
volume at 3,600 vehicles per day. The apparent impacl of the currenl measures on traffic
oeros! the bridge is negligible.
Regarding Ibe Lytton A ven'Je Ndghborhood Traffic Study, some reside.nts 0( Menlo Park
attended the neighborhood public meeting and ~.ve provided I;mited input Ihroughool the
study process. Palo .... JtO staff also mel ",itlo Menlo Park engineering and transportation
staff representatives in Jury i994 to discus! the study a1terr.atives and conclusions. Aft
informal Menlo Park .!affre,pons< did no( favo<clol;ure oflbe Chaucer Bridgz, and L'>ey
viewed Ibe o!her alternatives as primar',ry issues of Palo Alto concera and !l()( Menlo
Park.
SummllQ'
The study findings indicated thai safety and speeding concerns, within the .tudy area, are
00( IInusual for <:omparabk streets within Palo Aho. However, these findings also
suggest lila! there is • substantial .mou'~ of cut through traffic ,dllli" !he neighborhood,
and !hat the petential fo< mitigating through traffIC 00 some 0( tile st1e<:ts most .ffectro
does erist.
Alternative 1: rostalling traffic calming devices was supported by <esidents,..ho believed
thai speeding "'as !he primary issue, and by residents who did no( ",ish 10 ..,., significant
traffic shifts 10 other oeighbod>ood str""l" This measure, bowever, does not address
concerns of residents who ber",,,e that a reducOOn in traffic volume (especially cut
through traffic) is " .. entia! I<> !he safety and quality of life ,n !be neighborhood.
A1Iernative I is also Ibe mo.( costly of !he measures evalualed.
Alternative 2: Installing. ciiverl<r at Seoeca and falo Alto Avenue was supported by
51 percelll of t.;e responding residents. N 01 .urprisi ngly, the vast majority of resident>
of the 800 block 0( Lytton (13 of 14) .upported Ibis altern.INe, as j( directly addresses
!heir desire 10..,., • reduction 0( Ihrough traffic. Drawbacks include projected shifting
of traffic 10 several of the north!sooth streets, and restrictions 10 vehicular access through
Page l' 011'
., .
--:~
,":':',
.'"c· __ •
!be neigbborllood foc !be residents tIlemselvos. While !he primary shift ,.,f t,~ffic 10
Chaucer is not significant in tenns 0( percentage increase (approximalely S percent}.
residents believe tIlal Chaucer volumes already exceed desirable leve:.. Simil.,.
comments were submitted by individuals on University Avenue and Guinda Str.~l
Alternative~, CIo5ure ollhe bridge i. the most dr.lsoc 0( tbe control measure., and
would complelely eliminate vehicular .cco" between Palo Alto and Menlo Park. This
measure, Iw'i/ever. acbieve, !be traffic reduclioo 00 Palo Alto .nd I~yt_ Avenlles
desired by many residents, and al"" redl,",,' Ihe amoo", of traffIC on Chaucer, Traffic
diversion pattenlS and impacts are less dear, bowever. s.ioce I. diversion will OD..,tJr
throughout & much broader area. Traffic will be affe.."'kd througb tile Willows
neigbborbond 00 University A,'eoue east of Chaucer, 00 M'Jddier .. l<I •• nd possibly 00
&",1horne and E,'erett west of Midd'oefield. Of the nrst three alternative., thls is !he
leaSi rostJy, as it does nol incleode costs for circles and/or road bumps. Despite !be
proposed desiga for access by emergency vebicle., there is pot.enrial for I reduction of
r~sponse time for'mulUaI Oiid between Menlo Park, E4st Pal<> Allo, a:xl Pal<> Allo. This
allemanve "'as supported by Ie" tIlan 30 percent of those responding, a:xl is r.ol likely
to be ,uppor.ed by the cities of Menlo Park 0< East Palo Al10.
Alteraatin 4: Maintaining the ,tat\l' quo ",as suppocted by less than 30 percent of those
responding, While it doe. 001 ,hift 0<" inc«"", lraffic 00 Cbaucer. Guinda aoo odJet
neigbborllood streets, it also doe. no( address concerns (speeding 0< volume) nused by
!be majorizy of lIle residents. Individuals supporting this posit'.,.. generally ~xpressed
satisfaction wit1l current traffic levels .:xI patterns, and of",,, opposed restrictioos to Ira vel
on any streets.
Serond Westbound LaDe, Currently. Uni~e<si\)' Avenue is striped wi:h two througb
lanes and a Ieft~tura lane in llle eastbound direction, and one tlttoogb lane and .left-lunI
lane in the wesl1>oo:xl dire<:tion, A proposal \0 testripe University A venue 10 two through
lane. and .leIHu", lane in the westbound direction. and.me wough lane.nd a left-turn
lane in the eastbound <ftrectioo was included as pal"! of Allernative I and Alternative 2,
but it could aTso be considered rOf" Alternative 3, oc as an. independent -control measure
to be considered separately from the other three scenarios. This proposed impr<Nemeni
was atso included in tk Citywide Land Use and Transpoctation Study and awoved by
!be Cou","-iI. The additional ",estboon<! through lane approaclt 10 M"odd'Iefield on
University rna)' result ift fewe¥ motorists shorlcutting tIlrough tile slUdy area OIl Guinda
and/or on Fulton.
s,ot:aff evaIua!iou of this imp.-o'Vement indicates tnat while the changes would result in
improved traffic eooditions througbout ~'1e day, traffi<: conditions in tile P.M. peak period
woold be marginany ",one due 10 the retOOVaI of one of tile t.,'o eastbound lanes throogll
!be intersection. Staff believes tIlal tile benefits derived throughout !be day. however,
",ould offset tile marginal adverse effects on traffie coOOitions <!uring !be P.M. peak
period.
~, .-' ' :~~~
:-,-' .
... --.
.. . ,.
.......
"-:~:~~"
FISCAl. IMPACT
The Iiscol impact for this ~oject ranges fronl $0 10 $26,000 fo< • temporary installation
8JId up 10 $86.000 ror. pennanerot installation, depending ~pon wbat COlIne of act1"" is
pursued. AI the present time, there is roO funding established for implementation these
allerna:ive5. either on • trial Cl<' permanent basi •.
Table 1 summariu. costs for each of the first ~= alternatives for implementation 00
& teIllp<)nry (trial) basis. as ... en as a permanent basi.. Item. such as the ci .. "le, choker.
diverter and closure can be implemented at I lower cost on I temporary or trial basis.
Items 'L",II as road bumps aod turn prohibitio.., signs CUI be instarled only in their final
state. Sina eacb alternative oould be implemented with ()(" without the addition of ~
second .. estbouod woogb lane 00 University at M"KldIefiekl, the cost associated wi!h this
",odification is noted separately.
ALTERNATIVE
J. Road Bump +
2. Diverle£ +
,. Bridge Closure
•. Slatu. Quo
TABLE 1: SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES
TEMPORARY
INST ALLA TION
$26,000 Temp. circle
&. choker; 4
road :'u mps;
2 RT signs
$26,000
$15.000 Temp.circle,
dj'/elter &.
choker; I
road bump;
2 RT signs
$15,000
S 2,000 Temp.closure
$ 2,000
s \)
PERMANENT
INSTALLATION
552,000 Perm.circle
&. cooker; 4
road bumps;
2 RT signs.
~ 2nd WB lane
$82,000
$56,000 Perm.d.cle,
diverler &.
choker; I
road bump;
2 RT signs
$30 OOQ 2nd WB lane
SS6,OOO
SIJ,OOO Perm.closure
$30 000200 WB lane
$41,000
$ ()
b \he evel\\ tn,t \he PoIic~ and Se,....;.,es Commitle<l r""om~nds 10 Council 10 p ... ,,:eea
with. trial or pennanenl implementation. staff wilJ prepare !he app<opriate environmental
. assessment and I Boogel Ameodmcnt Ordinance, prior 10 Cooncil rem'" and action.
sn:rs FOIJ.QWJNG APPROVAL
The recommendation oflbe Polky and $e,....;.,es Committee w'JI be forwarcled '" !he full
Council for its review .nd action. F<JlIowing Cou neil >ction. staff will proceed as per Ihe
direction given by Council.
A -Neighborhood Speed Surveys
B • Lette£ 10 Residents Requesting Partidpation in Wocking Group
C -Comments from November 17. 1993 Neighbor100d Meeting
o -Neighbornood :Survey; Letter and Post Card
E -Servey Responses
F -CMR:554:93, Lyttoo Avenue Neighl>orhood Traffic Study -Status Report
cc: W orki~g Group Members
Cre=m Park Neighborbood Association
City of Menlo Park (Jan Dolan, Don Dey, Rube. Nino)
Cit)-of Ells! Palo Alto (Jerome Groomes, William Howard, David MiIJer)
East Palo Alto Tnmsportation Tssk Force
· ,-' --'.-,
ATTACHM£NT A
,.
A"llust 11. 1993
:-,
ATTACHMENT B
aryl--Palo Alto
CJermtm<n!~ Oinmunily .
The purpose of thisle(t...er is to infocm al>out a traffic study that may :interest you, and
to soIici! your participcion in • wor1cins group.
III Decembe!" 1992, !he City Council cfu-ected staff '" evaluate and report back 10 !he
Council regaraUlg appropriate st..-ps, if "'y, 10 reO""" ~ impact of traffic sllort
cutting IhroIlgll the Palo Alto Aver.uelLyuoo Avenue neigllbodlood via the
PopeiChaucu bridge. Since fhen.. W1! t-.ave ~ working closely with DarrtIl
Benatar. I neighborhood .representative, and :have conected n..ftic da!a in Ihe
neighborbood boun4e<l by tir.i.,mity A vea"". Midcllefidd RowI, C,au=-Stree~ and
Palo Alto Avenue. A5 shown on tbe enc~ .sheet.. certain st."'eeU in the
neishborbood do caJT} • sub_da1 amount of ll",J"OOg~ traffic.
TI-.e nut step is 10 evaIua~ traffic management aJlemati¥eS for the area. In order 10-
c!<> Chis. we would IiJoe to lbrm I '",orking group' of interested neighborbOO<l
residents (prdcably one ~dcnt from each street) 10 develop and review \-anoos
alternatives. = .. ili probabl, be two eveclnj: meetiog, of !he wor1cing group, as
\l/OlI as inreractioo "" an individual _ betw ... !he group members and City staff.
11'1011 are lnteresfeclln bein& • par'! or ihls IJ"OUp, please eoDtacl me bJ mail, or
I>J Ielepl>Oll< at 329-2575.
In teeping wIth the COOn....""il·s cfU'eCtion. the ~ manage.onent measures would be
developed only in !lie Sludy ar<a. However, poIendal impact. of !lie various plans
... ill be evaluated OVet" ~ wider area, including Uni .... ersity A.ventlC~ :Midd1efie1d 1toad~
and HamL."'too A ..... ue, Once pot.."'ntial altcmotives ba~ been devek>ped, .. ,d before
terori'.mends.!ions are 'p~~ we wiD bold a neighborhood meeting 10 seek the
in)'Ut of all residtnts.
If 100 bov. any 1j1JeSti0000, please caD ",e at J29·2.5~.
_ Sin=-ely.
~K~~'PE
City Traffic Engineer
Enclosure
ce: ""'-...""" F..o.b~ _C!.9<lO!
fl!.32SI~
415.3ZSI.l:299Fu:
;:, .
"--•• '>.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ..
ATTACHMENT C
LYITON NEIGHBORHOOD sruDY
Novsmbu ". 1921 Mttsie, Cgrnments
SQiff DtlC:dI 10 erect pea:l: period speeds,
Need to &tU4, bib lntffic (111 UDiv~ """allIe, especi.lny cbe \Io~UH! ~It kl Middlefield.
t:.; Ificq rolnI: liD be .a ,robtem if .. circte 'iii ,la«K1 a. cilber ("oath) sides of the brid.re~
'De &ovicoI clIoseo abould bile iclc C(;GS:iiktcjon, acccu: by emer~l" veil ~cics I\ICl as fin: lnlcb.
Circle III LJtIDnIGuIDda ~ sfmuld be C<"..!IlSi~.
Yomm, riJblIW'Il.! from lTuiveciry octo Fww.. lhoWd abo 'bot ratric'.ed.
Becas.e:lDOl'JiiClJ."bound M'Od ld ~ L,fUOI: it; 1fitmuJt, dri ...... tab GumdI mort c\II ffo(Il Uw.'enity,
hopJe excetd h yell""" )0 "!PH.II!vi"sory c.uve .... "'ftlaJ Iitn' 51oa, Pale A1tc A .... eaue-~ ~
'kmrI afoar ~ JoJto Avenue to .slow ~ dri"ers down..
Sttff Duds to dld !:Venin, .spe.od.s. Iboid: JO:OOpm,. e:q»cci~'y oct LJ'1loIl. bctw:=:; OuUsJa aDd ),f>6dd.
Sc:taari0ll presmted' de< DCIl ir:clud.l enoOU,'fo SJ."'O-'4 bump&. "",~mts ~ ~ a1ld, but especiany OIl
Lytton. fIetwees1 c.uuw.. and Midd'!dl.:id.
Nd 10 ~,pe.n discussioa oa c::TO'Ol::!, cbt!: r~ !loop.
So=arioti cab :oddress problem in • !maD ."hd wilboul takin, infO IICCO'lI1C impact beyond ill. borden;.
Snldy &boWd 100i more lit rezioaaI iss~_ Stwfy &Tel • too Iman.
We sbou1.! act tty ~ isclat~ OW" ~ehMm00d5. ~ couti.cue to .now ~ CD ;asc e:adiodJec0
•
D£iIbbodwod streets. Menlo P.uk, East Paio A1I:o. and P.a.l'o AM..
Mento Pm Imp ~ Uaivtrsity .as ~ to !be Dun:ibutos '!Itid,e. Mt:nlc Part lis:::. ~ • 3 OJ uJhllimil: OD budcs.. Uruversity hsndl.es lIP so 1 cons. Mcnfu ?.ilrt is l'r:spow.ibre fur s6iftiD. tn.f!k.
~ to _)1hiD.SIhel ~ I;CCC!lS oa. C1J ~ A! Ua.i1i~ ~t5. QV~. ~ is tr'affk
Ie to? If .. IR aom, $0 close off mlLttes" 5lreets, -.1Iyd'oa'l_ juQ cloY off UnlV~IY" 'IIo'dI?
Nd 10 reorient tfi5CU55iae to ~ safety at OW" c1Wdr=a.. The lItJ"8eG are ~ 5ilf~ ana-4u\: rY rwsh lIouts.
Need m Iixu:5: Cl'II "OrUD:; DOC ~ safety. Ill' arShetics:.
Nerd Ie fucw; 011 ~ "oJumes \:ave SOC ~g«J O'II~ I!Io: JlCIItS. Docs City bye past ILisbcJ ofvoTl.UDI:'!
~ ~idl:&ead-oa .'Xi&J:Drs 011 0Jl'\I~ 0117+ A1to A .... erlLie. Cocsi&rinstal!in! a median..a:lhr CW"\It:S.
~ lfiscussioa 011 Plan F; hU barrio;( ICTOS! PiIo Mo A"'ClHH: (jU51 ~'eSI or Chwct::}. Do ~
ncocsidet Pl.alI f. bI:u~ ~ lIla} j.lst JO Qu,.UCCJ lO Uru\luslty. lind badi.. ~ 1.,I:10Il. tromoae Q( \be
silk &tn:ets (Hale. Seneca Or .c:;QIncla)
Soeoario 12 (fun di\'crtc!r aI ~) rcsuJt!; ill Colo macll lIolulDo!: dKreasc= Of! o.:.~.
SUUes:J .. ODe IJIi.lIIlh test C!f ~rio n. Additional s:up~ ed!ocd for !his S'Uggesrioa..
ketoovt (be Sipa]' or s:gnals at Ly~onIGuinda aDd Ouiod:tl'UrUvusil)l.
Need Ie b:UIi 0#1 safcty~ lind rfJ.e jtfVb!ems caused bJ havdlj ~ p&stt4 on. bod! sid.!s or Ibe ~
~ camllining boJt:IJ Scen.arios.. hrsue 112, but: .. ·ic& ttW:I1 more r;;ped bwnps..
Nc.icbeJ" ~.o a&:rress.:s ~m: on PaTo Alto A~e.ntM!" from Lyttoc! a::. Midclk1idd.
Biggest probkm i;n'ol .... es D'IOtT'.ln: ~rist5 runnill~ $lOp sil:Jl.§ w t=d ligtl&. The: timlill ollbe liebt.
<hI~ Qd University is :so ICnr. tflaI pe.opk: pld: 50p 100 mu.::l1 ~
Police Ilfu::a. Ff\ a.t b coma of Lynoa 1t!I~ ~1.'iC&, SoIl 'd1eJl mast 'uow Ihar dlae is ... 'probkm ~
So ..... ~ 40 we ro &om ~~
"ot&! 0IIlK:Jd! 5C£J\8rior. eacII rec.!:r ... ed U "Go~.
This means ~ ~ 10 C\)~ 1 uui 2.
NlI! Nwnba 2 pt!Shcs tr.lffic el~
MeaJo Part bas bcca lIw.tik b OUt DCif'bborbcod.
Safet:y iI rril%lo$ ~ espedatl".r 011 Palo AJto A .... Cilue.
\Vb.1400"t 'M:: just !.:)' ~
" .,
1/
ATTACHMENT 0
Neighborhood Survey
Letter and Post Card
.' ,~ , .. -
,~ '-c·' -c ... -.•.•
Fobrualy 28, 1994
Cityof IhloAlto
~<fl'/ar:ni>l ...t
Oimm:mily tJ.wD""'~J
NOTICE OF NElGHOORHOOD SURVEY
LYTTON NEIGHBORHOOD TRAme sn'DY
The LyDOll NelJ!!borhood Traffic ~tlJd'y ~"M initialed last .feat to idenlify and ~aTua.tt st~. j{ &oy. to
JMoce I!le b1pact of traffic fbon cu.unJ ~~ the peilhOOrbood via the Pqle!C'hmcet btid'le.. The
:RUC!'y area is bouDded b} hIo Alto Avenu~ M":dd1efield R.om. Uaivm.4"y Avenue md Ch.ilx:er Sttcd..
Co!1~ data incfta!:e a sIgJilficans: I!JlOIJnt of cat-duoug!! traffic -during die mornl!!e and evenm, peak
1I01n'" M aD study streets vacying~"ee9 35 percent 00 some street seg1DeIlts 10 S4 percent Oil. odler weec
sezmc:nts. As you 1:00 .. froa; ,(las! correspoooeoce, the study has' includ~ speed. lIol"~,-ne,. and license
pl'8 ibu conectiCB; fCrmafun of I ....od:il'll &roUP .or area re:side!l!S to belp cfe.;clop ;aJ1-.emmve nffic
contrczJ measures;; and a g~iibbodlOod meet1DJ OB No .... emk" J 7, 1993 ..-he.re t'A'O 'IliOrlri.cc croup
sce.n3rios were 1f"1.SCUSSCd.
On JaDlW)" 19 .. 1994 .. me ",'Orldng ,roup md. to discuss dle input rec.eivea II the ntigbhornoo4 meeting.
II became ~ to the workIog eroup. _!flat dley. just ti-lOt'ir!J mOSt .present at !be ~igbborilood
meeting. 'Io'Ou14 DOt be-lb!e 10 deveTop .. run eon.o;.ensus for ellhe:r scenario. The ~rking group decided
DOt kJ lO'td: fiJrther .. and sugg~ed' dlat: staff evaluate It.e two exisctn: sceDiillos and dosure of die
PopeJChauc:er brlOge as • dIird sceoario .. and filrwMJ its rea>:m.mecd'af.oa lO the City Council.
In yIe. or lfIe above., ... ~ art: conside'tka: tm above-men60Ded Ihree ..-orting g:roo~ scem60s IS wen a;
a bmb sce:NIrio, "tell is to main-t:llia !be.l5Lat.ts q.JO.
Scef:D1f8 11· Install traffic wmiD: devices te:TEcla, cho1::ers, and' bumps). fimi: mornin& turns on
Uru~ity at: (7g!nj'a ~ FuJton. and acJd a second .... c:nbound Jane Oil Un1versltJ Dear
Middlefield.
• Call1l! ct!e traffi1; ~o"":1.
• Does DOt substa..tiaIiy !!:if. uaffic to olher streets.
• Maintains fiJ'!I study .area residents ~ 10 !:he PcpeJ'ClwKer b:i.1~e.
• WiD reduce cut-dlrough t:'affic vi.a V::Jversit .... )Guind'a.
• May d'"J.S-COurage some cut-tfu"c1Jgh tnrveJ throtgb the snuSy :uu. (but !lOt 10 tbe extent
desired by some ;-esldents 011 Fllo Alto and LYU051 AveDues).
• ButnpS.aM' related sIgns an DOt aest:t.etkany ,p!u:;rng.
Su.l2a1"f4o 12· lnstaJ! I diverter l/l. Seoeca and' Palo Alto Avenue. instaJ1 trsffic :aImin, c!e\lkes, runk
momln& !lJ,.;-,a 011. Univers1ly 31: Guinea and FLllton.. arnf add a second 1lIes::bound Iaoe aa
UciversiIJ near Micfd'ldielcf.
• Adtiev.es. traffic. reduction desirdl by residents ~tI Palo Ano Avenue and Lyu.OD by
ei3entiaIl}' enminar:lrl, e.ast-WC:iI cut-lfirougb traffi<: bet~~ the P~-er bridge
and LytU:!1iI Aveooe.
• Direct iK-Ce5S-fix 5tU(l',Y area resicJenu. Via Lytton/Para Alto Avenue from west of
Seneca to !!Ie PopeIO!aucer bridge wUS not be maintained.
-..
ZD~'IWU!
rIJ.b1<l25Q
hloAllc.-c.u.o:a
415..329.2520
~329.2299F.u:
Ll"'O" S""''Y
F<Mwy21.lm
Par' Z
$< • ...,wn(a>~
• Voltl abif!.: 1031: traffic tD Oimtet, UaNetSit:y~ and $eoea.
• Viii ioc::nase aa-chroup tn.ffic OD Guinda..
• May iDcrus~ b'ltfic 011 Mlddtwdd,
• Physkatl)'.separzIeI Qle Itud'J area It Senea, I.nd Omits trav-e!: .itbin lite JI'ildy ;au.
Hiibbo<lKlG<!.
S«1I4IiD 13· Close ee Po~auce£ bridrt to dLroue!l traffic. m."'t m,ainWn eeeess file emctjtr'd.)'
.. 1ti<:!<o, "",_"", and bkr..r"".
• A::::bieves traffic red~ioa de;sired by rc:s!d'cctl: Oil P.a!o Alto Av~ &nd L)'t1OJL
• SiJcifka:nt!1 reduces traffic 0::1 ~.
• This ii' tie :most drw.k rontrollltU5un.
• Compl$:d, efuninatl$ st'OOy area r~idl"lJts· .acceu to a.~ from Ibe PopelCh;u.cer
brid:e.
• wm inacase Cl..'t-du'ougll k"affk .oa GuindL
.. Will rouse nffic all M"ldd!efield and, po:ssibt,* on Everett and Hawthorne. w~
c! t.foddlefield.
• Will require.lhe support of Menlo Park. Prd""uninary irurY"...aDoos ;m .:,. Ml'!D!o Part
wil1 "'" "'WO" <>=to of I!Io bridge.
5«N1If4 U -MaiInUI "" "" ... quo.
• TrafflC .. ill DOC: be d"n.-e:rted ID oll!cr streets.
• Accw: ~ the. .study irQ r«5i;1enu kJ and' from lfIe PopelQ...-uct:( bridle wm be
mairhj......t.
• Eximal.:o~ rcllted 1:0 vebicWar voTulDe:! and speeds ~m remain .
.AJ eadII of k first three sce.oarios ....m affea: exisf"ll1& aratfk: -cooditiOfiS.lDip1 for c:adL" of 1M ~ 1hree
~ are endosed b' your review. The;rups in:fkate tile proposed measures and 'IfIe exiRInl and
estim2:ted projet1ed traf'I'k. Traffic: V{)tumCii for Scen:aritJ 14 are thoR: presented as ex1stio, coocrltiocs
C!c e3!.iI cf::fle 1!uu maps. We are seeking )'OOf input OD this matter by mea.'"1S of i pos!c ..... d $lU"VC)'.
Pie.ase fill 0lIt !he e.r..c.Josed~. plStCI!';t z.'lO IIllil iI 'b, Ftid.y, 'Marek 18, 1994_ Yoe may imrlCate
JOUr' prefttence for-more tbu ooe JCUlar10 100 add: any comments. at Ihe bottom. SQ~.qt.:ent to
recemn, ~ responses, _-e 'IIlfifI prerare-I staff report wid! n:c:ommendatlC'Q5. ar.d' runvard altO the CiI)'
CoWKi for iI5 consi&enrioa. We .. in aotif)t you by rnii! of the meedn, d'2U: and tl~
nw ,.~ for your rooperatioa.
JI1<. 411~
ASBOK AGGAAWAL, I.E.
Cq Traffic Ecglou<
«: M&rpret Feuer .. Cr~em P.a..-t "'eT.:bbcrnood' A.s$ociatica
Ittlloeo "'iii<>, Cq of Moolo P ... t
({'.,!.
,.il1:' .:..~ .
,':'!'!, '" ,"-:!< ',,-,-.;;,
" .... :;"
""0 ~~G GROUP
_~<"""'O #1
I
I@::"~' I ~P;;j 24 ;;e IFI'" . • '" £flO VOl l'MES
-( ,
WORKING GROUP
SCENARIO #3
c..l~~ ______________ ~§nd=-'~~~ __________________ __
"--.:: JOG" II1Hr-cQ. ~ ad __ r-~ bc:)o.-" ~J __ • __ :bu
_41k~~
-, -.OS "" • Wortiq ~ s-.no It
> ....CMtiI. ~ So;CWit n , WOltiil. aro.,. s.:-&ril n
• ~Sut:aQ-
ATTACHMENT E
Survey Responses
~ ~I
'" ~ --~ ~ --
I~~ ;; I;l li1
0 j L~ 1 i 8 a ~
'0 '"
~ i " • ·c ~ i " :.: ! 0 0 0 .~
§ ~ " " • = • .. '2 ~ ~ :=;
III ~ ~ 8 r-
I" -" ~ '" J • •
0 ~
~ l! .s i'~ 3 H ,; HiP • o~
"::l .i ipl ! J1tt11 ~ " ~tt! ~i ~
0 i :i .. .I:""l i " '" ~ ~ -~I!~ ,:, c ~!;=~~ -'S
gJ '" ... t I ~ . 1 I§"'-:'
~~ N -~, ~, 1 i !!i H IC l oS ~ .. ~ ';:-l~'"
6~
, ~!ii"" ~ t t,; • ; !'
l: 'i ~ li1 l i"l:~~ 1'" .. l=~-: • ~l:=~ lih! :J~~ .~ 0 0 ~ • ""1 .1 • < ..... i • 1i 1i <> .. to} ... . ~ = = • ~ii • t td"l\! :r::!'l" J Jl s Q . '" 1"".& 0 j ~~ .& o_~ " " lj " .' ~ a:::IIl: ..... Co " .. ... ~:i ! I = illd .. ~ °08 ", A ~ ~ ~ 1 -1-: 1~~.t-!l i I.> • , !i1 :.:" 0 0 0 ~~.!l~£-§~ H ~ ~ .. .. 1 :Ss-fr .!l:( i ="'qt = • '2 J :=; ..,~~~ l§:~", I ","'-0 ~ 11 H!l n .. i~-~l-!_
~ ~ -c 2 ~ :
~t l~t ~l ',;1\ ilf s "" ,..! 'S" t "
I ...:l:!it -=::: h'f~1! 1
0 ~ ! HH. ~p -1 t;~c "0" ~ ·c ~~ 1I~ i {= Ie -N ~. '" .: . -:; " . ~ i i.! t'. io': a! 1 ~ !.. .; =--=-t~u ., ~ S "'~4 ~
.. Wi =
t.
Jj
, . -~-.-, ,-,-'
"
"
'\ ,
'"
"\
'.
~:.
I " ~;:/" ,~,.
"'.
__ ,T
(' ~l'-',,"
300 BLOCK 01 FULTON STREET '
10
R"pon'"
s..n .... D.:tipllnn VIi'.'i NO NO • ItP..8f'ON5H
I Worklnll C,.,upSnnlll'lo.1 , 1, J
1 WorkJng Gmup &!e ... rlo.1 • Z 1
3 Working Gtroup &.1\11110 IJ I J •
4 M.lnt.ln St. .... QUD 2 4 4
OImmmll1
II ,mltlbiO """..,1116 wOIIM MO ".,,111"" IMlI ... .ut.,.ul"' .. 11I17I/fI, ,,.,lwlt ~ 1ItuI."
'ImDia Ift".' II, fflINHd I It b /mt.,. to try dlHtWlJ" ltJttie. /Int. II. III
JlltlII two arul if I .... t4tr1,ujlll 11. •• ", d/ul", ~IMNIH, brliI".
PI .... rI.II', lMi1lhll" .ta,,,,, ,II.!
I JI., (tJl tJr. t!O;"', tI/ 1I.ItDII"ttJ i..Jno" and,IN'mHIc a1tHfll;ftttf"
httiwHn O.ImI. IINI MlMldl.,d h .~~"."" h .. "y. rll. fiII'I ~(J""
(lffJulflillHl dIJf'tt" ,,.,,,,, G",""" reQ/fUt, ,t., ".11'" 'II ."..ltfJIWU
'M IIUytdWII W"MW H ".""It IJIIIIfWeIatH. ~I
........ ----
--------~~~~-.-.-----
4()() BLOCK of FULTON STREET
S
R~lpon:l'~
ScalI.rln n..,rtptlon VIIS NO NO • """",,,,0 •
I 1 Worldnl Ol'OtJp Sm .. tlo'l 5
1 Workln. GI'OUp Se.I.tlo'2 I 1 2
J Work-hili Gtoup Sr.oen.rlo.) I 1 z
• Maintain StatUI Quo 2 J !
~
11 uJ1l'ft~, 'Ill Hf!fIIfli MoW,." #3 t. tltlrJ~. lib Wt.drIl
to /11111111 way h/MllIl1u., frtI.Qls lit till .....
In ~lfIItio '~I buI"'" (1/. "'Hrl"1 lI.w 1IlkJ", • Irft him MIl "p IItll r.,. ANo Av. plIt, JIU,' (I. •• IItrll1 tu"' ",. S,,,*,,/fWIf 1' •• /Ji1J
AI'I), . '.'.'
11 wtll4lJ (llfty wo,k If ,"1iN ""'''''''MlfltJd am 1IfIIIi. 11IIt) f'N .", -"
.tfHtr Ilkrl Cd/lIp T.,.,.,.. ..
~ tllltlluuttIl tll.d;."",. MiIM (400) dlllJ;JhuJ.
"
',,'
.'\ _,i'
• I ~.
\'-.. ~
•
300 BJ.OCK of GUINDA STREET I 400 BLOCK o/OlJlNDA STREB't I
3 (inolude. 789 &. 8()~ Ulli .... lty) R"",, __ -. _pilon YF.8 1110 NO ,j • It8sPON,IIH I S<t:"rio
6 R'6pDft1f"
Dooorlpt/oo YES NO NO
~IL.\1'IOHSE
1 Wot.dlll Gnrup ~.rIO III 2 1 I 1 10 .... 1 .. tltuup Sao ..... ,\ " I 1
2 Workln. Gl'bup Snurlo tl I 2 i 2 Working GI'fHlP &.Mrlo 'l " 2
3 WnnlQII CtQv;p Setnatlo f3 3 3 War.dnK Group Seenarl,,'3 " 1 -" M.lntaln Sf.lul Quo 1 I I " ' ..... nbln Stltu. Quo 3 2 1
~ammllllll c;o.n-W I
I
1,..,.0 "t4Ibnl"I ~ftllH," to ,ldw II".,,, ", }In"'''' .It." 1M' to W,HNatdwtlOtJtu ./IJ"IPMJu, A""II'''' QNIIrft ... "."., .... u._u,. ~1t'B/III6 "'" lJ"W" (IIIP1W,IiII" "" hItI.4INIA.,I) .. ., "", ••
IfUll'rI lAIffI$1".,,1ImJ Nftllftllt .. ~ --1fIIIV&s ... w."" "",,,,I. A1w_~ mi' "lth ... h "..,.",11 rhMl< ,.../., ,'HHf III .1bId ~,""'It III .,. N. ,-t...,..,.., a.i_ .l1li ,."w,
J.w."ItU/ nnttHII' 'J IV', Tltaffk ,.,_/111 ,.", UlillltJIf¥IIlmt.. .,
1_ t..h¥,,/f""I>ofJ/&""" -1"1 """""",...1# /wonl
W1I,,,.,.,fInIIat'i U~A." W.",.aJ'*'It, 1112$111 JO~"
p~ dllJl .11 UlUrw.tt, /I.., r.rlwqJ. ,11M twlll/Ml6,.,. No Itlm A. ...
'-"IdH ,110II1II Iu ""'/MI o..y lIlY lUll .111 .. ,.",11.,. "OM •• rItIIjor
~ ~DfflII,",
I C""dtlu MIlk"', 101M #HIt. 011. way. I.:.
PtY/n'1CMfIriIJ 11; /.m", dull, , ..• tmII fli. It JlNlu.lJI ••
,wfIItIltDt~,., ItI'" ""1f'Ie~M ChI .... tJHfflIU "" "tIwr .ttwm. I ,hi"'. tood Illll1ti",.1I1d liWtlJl4 o..~. , I,.
? ' ....
. ',
.'.'
. ---_. ------------.. -~---------_. ---------"._,1"'
400 BI,.OCK or HALE S'l'RBilT !
(Includes 100' Un! .... '!)')
5 R"poIIJ"
SoenBrio DeIOt'iptio" YBS NO NO
t 1l!.WON'tB'
I WotlUn, Group Soenal'io"1 2 2 1
2 Wotldng OtouP SMn.no tfl 2 3
3 WDiting Group SQI!IIn.fiO 'J • I
• Main~jn Stll", QIIG ,. 2 I
CumDllBII'
hwfr,. MMllllno II. with IJ 1111" tililiu.
W .. ""IUId.,.tltH; ,/tjfll IfI ".ai", lJItaN fJItII '.In Ahfl A.N, o"...tIHIJ
1InHtI. Mtufilfl'" Sflilt4' AInJ, ,II.,.. IIHII. Ie ". _ • .mIilliHtallltHt
lJpt til /hI",." mII¥f (1M1IIfII1HIwH,. /hI llPlIIi tltt ,I."" IIfIll H"t.
• hfIIWY ,.,.) /JIIttHfll Hili, {1M $.... WA .. " walki" •• '"u I, • ,.,.,
art 6HJI. 'n ,II •• ,." J_I ."",It II/ 11111 •• ~t DIf ;h. ",.,.
.
700 BWCK; of LYTTON A VENlJll
;l
Rtsponu,
Scenariu Douartpt ... YI!.' 110 NO • ..........
1 Wofkjn~ Oroup SOeRArio'1 1 I -2 Workinl OtWp SOIIna 12 1 I , W~n~ Group bnn., l
• Maintain SWUI QIto Z
CWl1Ol111dtl;
'/'ItMJt J'n/", • .unltll W.1wM Itfflt IwIY "" tllll HntIr -"'" 1911
• BIG CHAN(JB IN TI/A."'CI
-
'J.:';,'
f' •
I ,_
"i ,
" , -, ~ ,\ ;
..
i 't
,
'.' .'ri
,,':r:i;\-~ ,
. ",A,
I.
!
~. ~
s'" I ~ ~ 'S g
Ol
~
ii o~
"'!
.. "
" --z
&l .. ... n
;; II i .j
i Li
0. t S " r' ~ ~ ~ ;0 ;0
01
j" -'"' .,
~ -= ..
lUI .. <-
" ...
... -!!i u i -~ ~ .
It'll ...
!tij
~ IHj .~ 0
& j .
~ I . ~ 1 ! jU~ •
t 1 l~fi I ):
hI! ! l·lIf~ J ~'i"~ II! ~ .. fl.h ... hH
~ -
II H
f 1 il ~1 f1 I:; ~i .t i . ~~ a' U ~!
I! i It .1 II i f .f
i .~ ~ ~ I . .n ~ tI 'O'J ~ ... a'§ .. .. . " p~ 1 .!:!~ • 11 --'" -~ "'.-~il ill • ~ ~'a .... c!~ .E "1--...
~ lq H r ~i -_ N " r" ~~ . f t
I C> N ~ .. ~ ~~:I I~ lI!.f z • .s " !i Ii 13 .. N --BY '"' "''' .. .. • • ~J < , ii" ~ ~ .. ':I~ >: jh :p H ;0; Ii 'iI ~ ~l 1 0 0 0 L! ~" i '. i -if .. 6 ! "E • ~.., • ! ~i.! ,it c Jl ~ ~.!
-{ H "O! e: ~ ... ... ... ld ~ i~ 1 2 ~ ~ ~
" c I oi O! ~ ~ .!I " ~ ....
~ ~ I!' ~~ f' ( J~ ~~ ~ c c ;;
'i! '" '5 :o!
'; ~ " '" i I iii .. "~
OIl ~ ti~ 1 l.
§ ~
i~ S • ,~ 1 :i'~
"'fi'.§ t ~ .., ...
t~ i ;; ,hl Ii ~~
-N ~ .. . ! ~ dl t ~n ~ ~ e c
.§ ".s
~ ~~l~ :.: ~ '<=~
c :;;: ';"'~""\'f ~ l.t]'lIiIf o~ --N 1 -l ..! ~llPt z~ .:-tel.r = 1 t I '.5 = 1 i ~~ £1-~ 1; foOl
I 0 ~ N N -lil.!:!! Ii'} z 1-~; -j ja-aill:-t
13 .. J!""i!..! il~';i -,~ N N i -"'I t ~tjl!.~ .. .5~ U I ~ I
~ ;: II" L ~ ~e E
;;; Ii Ii! "rr :q :l~l
« ! 0 e 1 • '1 P os j ~ 1 .... (
S."i ~ '5 6 ~ 'tr i -
1~ it",
1 Jl ~ ! .s-:t til "!i!-t~ :: l !l I ... J ! I .. I. ~"'-S
~ J ~ It lIlf • p. ali 1'1 0 "3" i "~ii ~ ~ ..
I!' • • c n l"'j .I 1"j-jtl • ~ ';
i! ! :; -I ... 1_'" <:ll
0 '; ~ 11 .a { :.l!E'~lt <Q ~ "'1
~ if 1 lHi .. t'1 .!. l i-s.e..; .... -1'<
i h'!ii' .... '" ~ 0
! J u ,ri~l.s:e :i·" . ul f • Ii i .. -N ~ .. : iId .s::~~i:,1
'" $1 .. .. 'IIi" ':iii "C..!.,:::! '! 11;1 .. II:
''1>." , ..... " .
Ii ;:~ ... ~ .... "I ii i ~ '. E -N -I ~
If
i ~!! • ~ ",1
0 -.. M 'II ~<I -'."a' ~
I~ z Hi }i1 ~ ';oJ!
M -.. H .. '" . ~~~ f" tI-i~ '" ,~ "' J"~ it" to. ~ ; t5:5~ ;; II 12 • t 1" >I~t ~§ 1 1 1 i ~ l'~ i.::p It-l "'~ "
it. "''<!~ 1 i i ~ '" "'t" -Yl ~ ~ I ..! ; .; gi~ ~ <L <L ,.1 ~ 11~{ ! ~ I I: • " c '~ !1t :i i H !' ~ ~ l!~'i ~ '" III c .. t & l' t ~ ~ " I:: 'i ... -1 "'" -loCI'} 'sl ~e ~ ~ -~ Jt~ i }h !!i~ p
c j ...:{~j '" p.-! .\ "j. hH ::I"":'" !H _ N
M ¢ Ii: ~ :a :I
.:! .e ~ I l§ I:l,lt.~
.,,;:-,
-" '. .,
-,-~I " ..
~ " i-~ " «:~ i \OJ ~ ~f j j ~
~.5 f j l ! k s~ r I f 1 <> ~ ;;; ~ -~
j--.. M .. J ~ ~
III ~i
¥
~ " '~ --
~ ~ ---
z ;0 !i: " 5 .. 1 J J 0
z .. l (; g J i3 .. ~ ~ ~ .., ~ I ! ! 0 i 2 10' ~ f i ! «: ;!:
~ ~ I J. -N .., I
~ HiH M
Itj ~ ~ ..
!f !!If~ ~ ~ ~ :,a i
<tl ¥~ it '"j
:;; I: ;.' i~4~ ~i~! 0 0 • .3-'5 i 1 aliI ! •
" f .! ; ~sj~ 1 i I ! hiif ~ft 0 1 .... ) 1 ~n I l!' I H~{l ~ ::E
-5-f "" £~... ~ ~"la 0 I }J ~ ~ .. .., ,. -! .. J
~ .. -N ~ '" .'1~ f~
8 !:ts!~-., i:$.t l
111 ..r'" t~ ;jHj-! o~ ~l
"'ill ~~. 111-' t" I ".i ~ .... • ~~ 'l; 111.:1
~ • ~j " . .~ q!l.i~1J " -!] oil .. .f I -
~ • .. 1 .... it:; :r:'S til " =1 ';PUlf ... rt; ~ ,
:;; l: ;.' ~i ~ i-q'i .3
~-.:~s 0 0 0 , lijHll ..... 1':.::< i i .., g .! tIl_O~ J l !i -~
-">Z i .l! j ~.a. . l.lp i 9soJ I I ~ Jj~~ ~,; -
~,o 'C s it to!; n j ~on ! ,~ i-it..l 1Ii-~~ l!' ~ ~ II i .It in1pH~ • • ' .
~ ~ ~ :E £ ,a~ .. • .l! • i I
~ -: c :t;o: ~ ~ ~!
-z t.s Ho! i .e ll'to ~ ~ "t'" F~ s 0-It 1 n jh~ -!!
J 0 0.2 ",Z:S -It II: 'j -N ~ .. :Ej l,;I"",Q 8-~< !H ~h ... l~ ~ ., •• .. ~e"5 ~. 0
--• 'J • ':.'<~:J-,~ ti
october 21.. 1993
HONORABLE CIrV comlelL
Pal~ Alto~ California
ATTACHMENT f
Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic StudY -Status Re~
Metr.bers .or the Coun;: i 1 :
This is an info~atiQnal staff repcrt regarding the status of the
Lytton Av~nue Neighborh?Od Traffic Study. No Council action is
required. To date, staff has completed the dat~ collect.ion,. fermed
a ~orkinq 9r~~p of interested area residgnts z and is in the process
C)·f develop in-; alternative traffi=: control ~eaSllres in coordination
with tile ""orkin<] .group. Staff expects to return to-council 'With a
reoommendati~n in mld-January~
The L):-t.ton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study ",,'a5 initiated in
January 1993 to investigate and address appropriate steps~ if any.
'to reduce tbe impact .of t.l'aftic sh-ort cutti.ng through the Palo Al to
Avenue/Lytton AvenUe neighborhovd via the PopeJChau~er bridge~
Initially" staff 'Worked closely with Hr. Carrell &!natar r a
neiqhborhood resident. who brought this issue to council's
attention.. At the outset of U'ie study" the study area was
identified as the. -Lytton Neighbcrho.;ld-" bounded by Palo Alto
Avenue., Middlefield Road" University Avenue" arid Ch?;:1.lcer street
(see At~achment 1}. The study was divided into five major tasks:
1. Identification of the concerrls and iss':.les;
2. Data collecticn" analysis and plOblem identificetioo;
3.. Formation of a 'ilorldnq group,. development of alternative
trat~!c control plans l ar~ a neignbOrhood meeting;
•• Cou·neil action; and
5. Implementation and evaluati~n;
. To date" staff has completed tasks 1 and 2'" and is working on
task 3.
CMJ<:554:9)
-.
COJaLITl!D lion
JdentlficlJl;ioo of Issues and cOnc~
As in pa!t neighborhoOd-studias,
the primary issues in this area.
issues identified:
throuqh t~~ffic and speeQ!nq are
Listed belo~ are three specific
J.. Tnrouqh traffic en Palo Alto AVen1.le.JLytton Avenue {via the
PopeJCha~~r bridq~li
2. Through traffic on GuindaJLytton {arising from drivers trying
to avoid the Kiddlefieldj~niversity intersection}; and
3. Speeding on Palo Alto Avenue between Chaucer and Seneca, a04
on Lytton Avenue between Seneca and Guinda.
pata Collection« A!laly~ and Problem. Identification
'l'raffic Volume'S
TWenty-four hour-traffic volumes ...-ere !r1easured in Feb-r~ary and
March of lSS~4 at 12 locations along the main access routes into
and within the study area. Fo-ur additional traffic counts were
taken. one on University Avenoe, .one on Chau-cer Street south of
University. and two on H~milton Avenue.,. to help det.ermine possible
impacts. -of any potential measures. The count locations and
recorded: trafCic volumes are shown in Attachment 2a The traffic.
volumes represent total~ two-directional volumes at each 1ocatioo,
fo~ an average 24-hQur period.
The streets on ..... hich the counts .. ere ta>::en fall into t .. ·o functional
classifications: collector streets {Guinda, Lytt.on from Guinda to
Middlefield., and Chaucer} and local .streets {Palo Alt.o .~venae .. P..ale
street, Seneca St.reet... FUlton Street, Everett A ..... enue,. and ~ytton
froa Guinda to Seneca].
The range of traffic volU!lies on collector streets within this
neig.hborhood varies between 2,300 vel'licles/day to 4,5.0:0 vehicles/
day. Traffic volUlnes on local streets range from 130 vehicles/day
to 2'J 300 vehicles/day. A compariso-n..-of t.hese traffic volumes 'With
. traffic volumes on sever-al other loc31 and collector streets in
Palo Alto {Attachment 3J, indicates that t.he measured 24-hour
traffic volWl!es for this area are not. u:\-us'Jal compared to sil.dlar
streets in other parts ~f Palo Alto~
Through Traffic
A. license plate matchiTl9 survey 'W~s conducted in May 1993, to
deteraine the extent of through t~affic in the neighbvrhood. The
survey ~as conducted during "the morning and evening peak commute
perlods~ 7:30 a.M. to 9:30 a.a. and 4:30 pa~. to 6:3G p.m. The
extent of through t~affic at eacb 9~teway durinq the evening and
marni,.,."} is s"bown in Table 1 aM in Attact.mer.t 4.
CHR:554:9l 10/21/93
Page 2
Table I: Througb Traffic Survey Summary
AM Peak (7:30-9:30 am) PM p""j: {4:30-6:3O pm}
~.
Gate (lOCatioo} TO(>} Through Percent Total Thr(JUg~ Percent
Trips Trips Through Trips Trips T!u".1Ug1>
PopelCbau= BOOge ~90 412 60 745 4i!6 66
Unive,..ltylCllaucer 375 296 80 40 314 7('
Unlversily/Hale 30 IS 50 25 16 62
UnlversitylSeneca 61 Sl S4 37 IS 41
UruversityJGuinda 394 274 I 70 330 261 7!}
Univers.itylFull<l!! 51 18 35 6! 28 50
MiddlefIeldlLyt!<l<1 130 <36 tv 643 473 74
.
Middlefield/Everett 81 51 6S % 53 55
Middlefield/Pal') Alto --.1L ~ -M.... -2L .-l!L ~
2,445 1,517 64 2,405 1,668 69
These data indicate:
1~ Si~ty-f~ percent ot the traffic in the morr.ing peak period
and E9 percent of th~ traffic in the evenir~ ~ak period is
through traffic; and
2".. While all of the streets in the r.eighbo·rhood carry a
substantial amount of through traffic$ Chaucer, Guinda, Palo
_ Alto Avenue and Lytton. carry the lnOst.
Staff believes that a majo.r contribllting factor for through traffic
frOil University Avenue 'to GUinda ii!!Ind Lytton,. as 'Well as other
throuqh traffic in the neiqhborh-ood.. is traffic congestion on
University at XidOlefield.
In 'comparison. the Evergreen Park neighborhood (studied in the
19805) carried approxi~ately 44 percent thrvvqh traffic.
CMR:554:9J 10/21/9)
Page 3
speed SUrveys
Weekday speed: surveys .. ere c:ond'.!ct.ec!: using caltrans methodolog-.f on
two street seqments., 3 S sho",'n be 10<,&1:
Loc,t.iGD
Palo Alto Avenue between
Chaucer and Hale
Lytton Avenue bet...,een
Seneca and Guinda
85th
Ferce~ile
29 mph
The survey data indicate that the 85th percentile speeds are higl"ler
than the prima facie. 6peed liMit 'Of 2S ll'1ph.. Bo'We .... er ... as shown
below in a sample of p-ceviol.ls surveys" this is not uncommon in Palo
Alto. The 85th percentile speeds on ~~st Palo Alto streets ace
qenerally ~ to 10 mph above the posted speed limits ..
Location
Barren Avenue east of
Cass liay
LaDonna Avenue soutb of
Paul.. Avenue
Marion Avenue f~om MiQdlefield
Read to Cowpe~ Street
Laguna Avenue north of
Barren Avenue
85th
Percentile
33 mph
33 mpb
31 mph
:In addition.. staff also checked the accidents reported to the
Police Department from January 1988 to December 1991.. A tot~l of
13 accidents was reported wi~hin this four year period. Palo Alto
Avenue ... approlii1l'.ately 1S0 feet west ot Rala, l1ad t .... o accidents.. '10
ot.her locat.io.%". bad Klor'e than cne accident durinq this tiJJe period ..
While th.e speed su.ntey data show-that t.raffic in tbe neighborbood
exceeds the posted limits .. the accIdent histo,ry does not indicate
that hlgber speeds have res~lted in substantial problems.
l.~ s\lt!LiZiary, while t.he 'traffic volurr,es 20M speeQs in this
neighborhood are simil~r to or lc~er than other Palo Alto
neighborhoods ... t'he neighborhood does carry a high amount of through
trafflc_
CHR:S54:U 10j21/93
Page C
CUlUtDI'I vou
In ~u9u$t, staff solicited area reside:.ts to partIcipate in
developing arA reviewi~ alternative traffic control measures for
the neig-hborhood.. A 'Mo.r-king qr~p of nine residents frOlli variOYs
stre.e.ts was fOrJled.. Two wo·rking group :r.eetings have beer.. lleld thus
far,. and staff has ~);'resen~ed se ..... en alternative, pVms fo['" the. group
to evaluate.. staff expects to return to CoO-·r.ell with a recommen
dation in ald-Ja.nuar.,.r 1994 ..
Throughout this process, st~ff has k~pt the Crescent Park
Neighborhood Association informe~ about the progre$s o! the Lytton
Aven-"Je Nel-iqhbor-hood Traffic stcdy.. copies et the dat.a end
correspondence sent to the wo-rkinq group have been sent to the.
Crescent park NeighborhOod Associaticn president, Margaret Feuer ..
staff is also ~ovidinq relevant information to Menlo Park starr.
who ar-e. worJcinq on the willows Neighoorhood Traffic St\. .... dy.
Re9pectfully submitted~
+~ "..sHOlI:. X. AGGARWAL
city ~aftic Engineer
~m.~,
BE!<NARO M. STROJNY
Assistant City r.anager
~£-~
KENNFl'1i R. SCHRUBER
Director of Pla~~inq
and community ~~vironment
Attachments: 1 ..
2.
3.
Lytton neighborhood area map
c.
TTaffic count locations and volumes
Examples of averaqe two--way. -dail;,-. 'Weekda)-
traffic
Map .. showing the extent of through traffic
cc: Lytton Avenue Ne.igtLoorhood Working Group
Margaret Feuer, Crescent Park Neighborhood Assoc. President
0!R:SSC,93 10/21/93
Page 5
-:"<-.--. . .: --~. . .. -------~ ~
II
I
1
L
c; ~N3WHO"li"
· • • • · ·
z /
•
.' -.•.. .',
ATTACHMENT 3
£XAI1PlES Of MHIAf AVERAGE \l£EKDAf DAllf TRAFFIC VOCUIlfS (ADTs)
MeASURED ~N RESID£NTIAI IOC4t )l~O COlLECTOR STREETS
IN PALO Al TO·
taCal Streets
Addis •• wI Emeroon (19S0) ISS5
8.rron wt Whitsell (1986) 1300
Bryant sl e~ann!ng (1990) 1390
E""ewood <, Rhode. (l989) 330
Bryant ./ ~egon EXI> (1989) 12S0
Chaucer ~ H.~ilto. (1988) 1200
College 01 [1 Ca.;Do (1985) 1875
(olor.do ~ Vaverley (1989) 1010
Colorado _/ Cowper (1989) 2355
Cowper 5/ C.ler.do (I98S) 2240
Donald., Arastradero (19S') 470
Gr.er it lI,ddux (ISS7) 17CO
ta Oonn •• 1 Sa. J.de (1986) H45
lineel. sl Hamilton (1988) 1500
Plarioc e' Cowper (1989) 650
llaybelI wI fbail Wa, (1986) 2010
N"""n s/ S .. l. (1985) 2090
JOIonroe at !!onTOe .. {1985) 690
Ramona 5/ (oanning (1990) 600
Ross 51 Ames (l9S0) 2290
r.lfsm,. el Ross (1990) 410
Vaverley .t E. Meadow (1988) 485
Wiyerl.y ./ o.ego. Exp 11989} 1135
Vebster e/ PlariM (1989) 280
Brya,t s/llo"",, (19SS) 2040
llneol. w/ Vave,ley (19S0) 920
Hawth~ne ~I M'ffe1d ll988j 1990
{,erett wJ ~'fjeid (1988) 1900
<owper 5/ o.ogoo Exp (1989) 2,10
~
C,lltctor Streets
Amar.,t. 51 CereZi (I~) 2090
~iverl., "/ Embare (1990) 4715
Vaverle, 5/ Char,ning (1988) 3730
C.lifer.i. wI ,.1. (1986) 1190
C.llfer.i. _/ M'field (!SSS) 3000
C'.,ning vI e.nter (19sa) 4B75
hind. _/Hamilton (1988) 2220
Coulombe of ATast' (1986) 1620
Ramilte" 0/ M'field (1988) 3900
lem. ,.rde _/ Ross (1990) 2Bl~
louis ./ Colorado (1989) 4SSO
louis sl (,lifor.i. (!985) 3320
(olorido el ~'field (IS89) 6525
l Robles wf 'il list. (19B9) 5SB5
~itid.ro vI [1 Cimino (1986) 2300
Maybell ~I Amaranti (1986) 2905
N~ell of Embar,adero (lSsa) 7680
Ne~ll oj R.milton (ISsa) 2600
E. Me.dov _I ATma (1989) 9310
E. Me.dow eJ M'fielel «198S) 4890
Pirk Blyd eJ EI Ca.!no (19BS) 870
e,ur<'ill elEl C.mino (1389] 10115
C'urc\ill vi ~.yeTley (1989) 22SO
•• e,1if w/ll'field (989) 1775
N. C.lIf e/ll'fleld (1989) 3510
tiguna of San Jude (1985) 1050
Stanford wI Bawd.i. (1889) 8400
(19xx) • year of measurementj 51. n/. e/. ~I ~ south of. etc~
uu,pl-e-s ioclade !~gt\est and lowest Existing lIeasureme.flts (or eac~ <.a.teg.ory;
flo.ever. otfJer streets. root lI1easured could lIa\lt iigl1er or lower COUT1tS~
Though t~fs list does i~lude most residential collector streets im PaTo Alto l
it does n2l (~lude most loc~1 streets. ACTs bave not been ~easured O~ most
loc.1 streets. ~any loc.l streets oot s~o.n on this list wou1d be ex~.eted to
~.ve ADTs of le.s t,an 500,
CS
6/4/!ItI (Revise<! 11/20190)
-~-< •
,; • • • ~ ;; • •
~ l.N3INHOV'uV L
, . .: