Draft Final Report: South Palo Alto School Commute Safety Study

Transcription

1 Draft Final Report: South Palo Alto School Commute Safety Study Prepared for: The City of Palo Alto F EHR & P EERS T R A N S P O R TAT I O N 3685 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #301 Lafayette, CA Fax:

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. SUMMARY OF ISSUES... 2 III. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Evaluation Techniques Data Collection Data Evaluation Evaluation Summary IV. ANALYSIS FINDINGS AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Findings Based on Data Analysis Alternative Solutions Recommendations Technical Appendix is a separate document. i

3 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 Study Area and School Locations A School Attendance Areas B Middle School Attendance Areas C High School Attendance Areas A Comments and Recommendations, Barron Park School B Comments and Recommendations, Juana Briones, Terman and Henry Gunn Schools C Comments and Recommendations, El Carmelo School D Comments and Recommendations, Fairmeadow, Hoover and Jane Lathrop Stanford Schools E Comments and Recommendations, Ohlone and Palo Verde Schools Study Corridors and Intersections Average Daily Traffic Volumes Vehicle Speeds A Bicycle Volumes Observed by School Crossing Guards B Pedestrian Volumes Observed by School Crossing Guards ii

4 LIST OF TABLES Page 1 Summary of Comments from All Meetings Corridor Performance Signalized Intersection Performance Unsignalized Intersection Performance Master List of Potential Improvements Corridor Improvement Recommendations Signalized Intersection Improvement Recommendations Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Recommendations Corridor Performance Bicycles and Pedestrians Signalized Intersection Performance Bicycles and Pedestrians Unsignalized Intersection Performance Bicycles and Pedestrians iii

5 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page 1 Eastbound Arastradero at Gunn Maybell eastbound Amaranta northbound Los Robles looking westbound Los Robles looking eastbound Barron looking westbound at LaDonna Matadero westbound at Julie Matadero eastbound at Julie El Camino Way north of Meadow El Camino Way south of Meadow Waverly / Meadow northwest corner Waverly / Meadow northeast corner Waverly looking northbound, north of Meadow Waverly / Loma Verde from southeast corner Waverly / Loma Verde from southeast corner Waverly / Loma Verde from northeast corner Charleston / ECR: pork chop, southeast corner Terman / Arastradero, from southeast corner Terman / Arastradero, from southeast corner Alma looking southbound toward Meadow iv

6 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to review conditions that affect the safety of travel to and from schools in the southern part of Palo Alto. This study is the second of two phases; Phase I resulted in a Citywide School Commute Safety Study report in 1996 that focused on schools in the northern part of the City. This study focuses on physical changes to the transportation system to improve school commute safety, and presents alternative solutions and defines the tradeoffs between their costs, impacts, and benefits. Changes discussed here may include a number of physical improvements using both traditional and non-traditional traffic engineering techniques, such as modifying lane widths and configurations, changing traffic signal timings, installing signage, or constructing special street treatments such as textured crosswalks or curb extensions. Education of students and parents, methods and strategies to encourage modal shifts, and citywide strategies, objectives, and policies designed to improve safety are not considered in this study, as they were addressed in the 1996 Citywide School Commute Safety Study. Ten school sites were included in this : 1. Barron Park 2. El Carmelo 3. Fairmeadow 4. Gunn High 5. Hoover 6. J.L. Stanford Middle 7. Juana Briones 8. Ohlone 9. Palo Verde 10. Terman Middle Extensive data collection and independent research has been completed regarding traffic volumes on streets near schools, accident experience, and potential methods for improving pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety. This study involved interviews with representatives from all of the school sites, the School District, and various City agencies to identify issues of concern regarding student safety while traveling to school. In addition, a Study Advisory Committee (SAC) was established to review the results from each stage of the study and provide feedback and direction for later stages. The following sections of this report address the following topics: Chapter II - Summary of Issues Chapter III - Data Collection and Analysis Chapter IV - Analysis Findings and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions 1

7 II. SUMMARY OF ISSUES The first stage of the involved meeting with stakeholders to compile a comprehensive list of the school commute safety issues perceived within the community. All of the schools studied in this process are located south of the Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway corridor. The study area and schools are shown on Figure 1. Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C show the school locations and attendance areas for the elementary, middle, and high schools, respectively. As described in the Introduction, the study team met with representatives from all ten school sites, the School District, and the Palo Alto Police and Fire departments to identify specific issues, corridors, and locations perceived as problems for students commuting to and from school. Information collected at these meetings was presented to the Study Advisory Committee (SAC) for review and comment. Issues Raised by City Staff and Site Representatives Over 60 comments and recommendations were gathered at the meetings with City departments and representatives from each school. The comments were then summarized and classified into discrete categories. Table 1, Figures 3A through 3E, and Appendix A present the meeting findings in different forms to clarify common issues and identify issues specific to each school. Table 1 provides a summary of comments from all meetings, while Figures 3A through 3E capture location-specific comments that can easily be mapped. Appendix A provides an exhaustive list of all the comments received, categorized by topic and by school. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM ALL MEETINGS Topic Number of Comments Bicycle/pedestrian safety and improvements 22 General/other comments 14 Traffic calming/congestion/control 14 Education/encouragement 11 Parking restrictions/traffic and law enforcement 9 Drop-off program/restrictions 8 Signage/striping 5 Design modifications 2 Intersection improvements 2 Neighborhood-friendly road 2 Reverse traffic flow 2 Signal coordination 2 Turn restrictions 2 Curb/sidewalk design changes 1 City sanitation schedule change 1 Vegetation control 1 Visibility improvements 1 2

8 There is substantial overlap between many of the issues summarized above, which can generally be aggregated into the following themes. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvements: This theme was consistently raised at the meetings and had the highest frequency of comments. Bicycle lanes along Maybell Avenue were recommended. Pedestrian pushbuttons, enhanced crosswalks, ramps, crossing guards, and additional signage were requested at heavily traveled intersections in the Briones, El Carmelo, Fairmeadow, Palo Verde, and Barron Park attendance areas. West Charleston Road, Arastradero Road, Maybell Avenue, Charleston Road, East Meadow Drive, Colorado Avenue, Amarillo Avenue, El Camino Real, and Matadero Avenue were identified as streets needing these improvements. Traffic Volumes, Speeds and Enforcement: This theme included comments on arterials, traffic volumes, and traffic enforcement. There was consensus that many routes taken to school are on busy arterials or collectors with heavy traffic volumes and average speeds well above the posted speed limits. Many of the comments reflected concerns that traffic speed and volume issues were directly related to: (a) lack of signals and/or stop signs, (b) lack of speed limit and turn restriction enforcement, and (c) spillover or bypass traffic from more congested corridors. The traffic volumes and speeds on Arastradero Road, West Charleston Road, Foothill Expressway, and Maybell Avenue were concerns from Juana Briones and Gunn High representatives. Barron Avenue was identified as a high-speed corridor. Loma Verde Avenue in the El Carmelo attendance area and Rorke Way in the Palo Verde attendance area were identified as streets needing traffic calming measures. Design Modifications, Signing and Striping: This theme included comments on changes or additions to roadways, driveways, street signs, and striping. Signing and striping changes were suggested to improve bicyclist visibility in bike lanes and pedestrian visibility in crosswalks. Signs to add turn restrictions, advertise the speed limit, or modify parking restrictions were also recommended. The need for design modifications at Gunn High and Briones driveways was identified. Intersection Improvements: This theme is related to traffic volumes, speeds, and enforcement focusing on intersections with the highest student bicycle/pedestrian activity. Comments included the need for: (a) improved signal operations, (b) crossing guards, (c) turn restrictions, and (d) handicap ramps. Primary and secondary crossing guards at intersections with heavy bicycle and pedestrian activity were requested in all elementary attendance areas. Comments on turn restrictions were also noted from Middlefield Road to East Meadow Drive, and at various locations on Georgia Road, Charleston Road, and Rorke Way. Signal coordination allowing for easier bicycle/pedestrian crossings at intersections on Arastradero Road south of Gunn High School was also mentioned. Parking/Drop-off Restrictions: Most school drop-off areas do not easily accommodate the vehicle volumes they are required to serve. A number of parents disobey turn and parking restrictions in the areas immediately surrounding the schools. The major concern is the need to ensure bicyclist and pedestrian safety in these areas, rather than improving traffic flow. Enforcement of posted signs and drop-off rules was the main recommendation to improve safety. 3

9 OREGON EXPRESSWAY EL DORADO AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD El Carmelo AMARILLO AVENUE ROSS ROAD COLORADO AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET Ohlone LOUIS ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE GREER ROAD AMES AVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY Palo Verde EAST MEADOW DRIVE PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL MATADERO AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE Barron Park LAGUNA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE Juana Briones PARK BOULEVARD AMARANTA AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE ALMA STREET BRYANT STREET COULOMBE DRIVE EL CAMINO WAY MAYBELL AVENUE WEST MEADOW DRIVE WILKIE WAY EL CAMINO REAL Fairmeadow Jane Lathrop Stanford M.S. Hoover WEST CHARLESTON ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FOOT HILL EXPRESSWAY HILLVIEW AVENUE Henry Gunn H.S. ARASTRADERO ROAD Terman M.S. ARASTRADERO ROAD Palo Alto School Commute Safety Study School Locations FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY School Buildings Miles School Grounds February \gid\study_roads.mxd STUDY AREA AND SCHOOL LOCATIONS FIGURE 1

10 El Carmelo OREGON EXPRESSWAY EL DORADO AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD El Carmelo AMARILLO AVENUE ROSS ROAD COLORADO AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET BRYANT STREET Ohlone LOUIS ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE GREER ROAD Palo Verde AMES AVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY Palo Verde EAST MEADOW DRIVE Fairmeadow Fairmeadow PAGE MILL ROAD Barron Park EL CAMINO REAL MATADERO AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE Barron Park LAGUNA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE Juana Briones PARK BOULEVARD AMARANTA AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE ALMA STREET COULOMBE DRIVE EL CAMINO WAY MAYBELL AVENUE WEST MEADOW DRIVE WILKIE WAY Juana Briones EL CAMINO REAL WEST CHARLESTON ROAD Hoover MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FOOT HILL EXPRESSWAY HILLVIEW AVENUE ARASTRADERO ROAD ARASTRADERO ROAD FOOTHILL EXP Palo Alto School Study School Attendance Areas School Buildings School Grounds Miles Attendance Areas February \gid\elementary2004.mxd ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS FIGURE 2A

11 DRIVE OREGON EXPRESSWAY EL DORADO AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD AMARILLO AVENUE ROSS ROAD COLORADO AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD LOUIS ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE Jane Lathrop Stanford COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET BRYANT STREET GREER ROAD AMES AVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY EAST MEADOW DRIVE EL CAMINO REAL PAGE MILL ROAD Terman MATADERO AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE LAGUNA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD AMARANTA AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE ALMA STREET COULOMBE EL CAMINO WAY MAYBELL AVENUE WEST MEADOW DRIVE WILKIE WAY EL CAMINO REAL Jane Lathrop Stanford M.S. WEST CHARLESTON ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FOOT HILL EXPRESSWAY ARASTRADERO ROAD Terman M.S. HILLVIEW AVENUE Miles ARASTRADERO ROAD FOOTHILL EXP Palo Alto School Study Middle School Attendance Areas School Buildings School Grounds Attendance Areas February \gis\middle2004.mxd MIDDLE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS FIGURE 2B

12 DRIVE OREGON EXPRESSWAY EL DORADO AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD AMARILLO AVENUE COLORADO AVENUE LOUIS ROAD ROSS ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET BRYANT STREET LOMA VERDE AVENUE GREER ROAD AMES AVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY EAST MEADOW DRIVE EL CAMINO REAL PAGE MILL ROAD Gunn MATADERO AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE LAGUNA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD AMARANTA AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE ALMA STREET COULOMBE EL CAMINO WAY MAYBELL AVENUE WEST MEADOW DRIVE WILKIE WAY EL CAMINO REAL WEST CHARLESTON ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Miles FOOT HILL EXPRESSWAY HILLVIEW AVENUE ARASTRADERO ROAD Henry Gunn H.S. FOOTHILL EXP ARASTRADERO ROAD Palo Alto School Study High School Attendance Areas School Buildings School Grounds Attendance Areas February \gis\high2004.mxd HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS FIGURE 2C

13 DRIVE EL COWPER STREET BRYANT STREET WAVERLY STREET EL CAMINO REAL ALMA STREET Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Add a Crossing Guard Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Add Sidewalks/Bike Lanes Intersection Improvements: Create a More Pedestrian-Friendly Intersection PAGE MILL ROAD PA Sanitation Schedule Change: Collect Trash/Recycling during Non-School Commute Hours Intersection Improvements: Improve Visibility Parking Restriction Enforcement: No Parking in Crosswalk MATADERO AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE Barron Park LAGUNA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Create a Safe Walking Route Signage/Striping: More Visible School Zones Vegetation Control: Reduce Vegetation in Alley LOS ROBLES AVENUE Traffic Calming: Reduce Speeds from La Donna to Laguna AMARANTA AVENUE MAYBELL AVENUE EL CAMINO WAY WILKIE WAY WEST MEADOW DRIVE WEST CHARLESTON ROAD COULOMBE EL CAMINO REAL Miles FOOT HILL EXPRESSWAY HILLVIEW A ARASTRADERO ROAD Legend School Buildings School Grounds Attendance Areas February \gis\barron2004.mxd COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS BARRON PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIGURE 3A

14 MATADERO AVENUE JO AVE BARRON AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO WAY WILKIE WAY WEST CHARLESTON R Bicycle Safety: Bike Lanes Needed Pedestrian Safety: Pedestrian Push Buttons LAGUNA AVENUE Reverse Traffic Flow: Change Exit/Entrance to Driveways AMARANTA MAYBELL AVENUE Bicycle Safety: Bike Lanes Needed Pedestrian Safety: Signs to Cross to Sidewalk AVENUE Pedestrian Safety: Crossing Guards Juana Briones Traffic Calming: Speed Humps Pedestrian Safety: Enhanced Crosswalks for Visibility Traffic Control: Turn Restrictions COULOMBE DRIVE FOOT HILL EXPRESSWAY Bicycle Safety: Bikes will be Blocked by Cars Traffic Congestion: Traffic from HS may block Terman entrance Parking Restrictions: No Parking Traffic Congestion: Drop-off Area Changes ARASTRADERO ROAD Bicycle Route Improvements: Bike Lanes along Maybell Neighborhood Friendly Road: Bicycle/Pedestrian Friendly Terman Middle Pedestrian Safety: Safe Passage Needed HILLVIEW AVENUE Miles Signal Coordination: Shorter Wait Time for Bicycles/Pedestrians Signal Coordination: Shorter Wait Time for Bicycles/Pedestrians ARASTRADERO ROAD Henry Gunn High Traffic Congestion: Change Schools Start Time Design Modifications: Both Exit Lanes Should Turn Left Design Modifications: Add Capacity for Right Turns into School Driveway Traffic Congestion: Drop-off Area Changes Legend School Buildings School Grounds Attendance Areas February \gis\briones2004.mxd COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS JUANA BRIONES, TERMAN AND HENRY GUNN SCHOOLS FIGURE 3B

15 GREER ROAD RE FREEWAY COLORADO AVENUE LOUIS ROAD OREGON EXPRESSWAY MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Signage/Striping: Reverse Stop Signs to Reduce Speed on Waverly Street ROSS ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE AMES AVE EL DORADO AVENUE Signage/Striping: Install Stop Sign at El Dorado and Waverly Signage/Striping: No U-Turn Signs Parking/Traffic Law Enforcment: Clearly Mark Hydrant Area and Enforce Stop Sign Law Signage/Striping: No U-turn Signs Traffic Calming: Through Traffic Restrictions and Radar Trailer El Carmelo BRYANT STREET WAVERLY STREET COWPER STREET Signage/Striping: Install Stop Sign on Loma Verde at Waverly EAST MEADOW DRIVE EL CAMINO REAL ALMA STREET PARK BOULEVARD Signage/Striping: Install 4-Way Stop Sign with Crosswalks Legend School Buildings Miles WEST MEADOW DRIVE School Grounds Attendance Areas February \gis\elcarmelo2004.mxd COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS EL CARMELO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIGURE 3C

16 EL DORADO AVENUE ALMA STREET BRYANT STREET COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET Traffic Enforcement: No U-Turn EAST MEADOW DRIVE Turn Restrictions: No Turn on Red During School Commute Hours PARK BOULEVARD Drop-Off Restrictions: Enforce Restricted Drop-Off Rules Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Additional Crossing Guards WEST MEADOW DRIVE Fairmeadow Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Hoover Curb/Sidewalk Design Changes: No Rolled Curbs to Restrict Parking on Sidewalks WEST CHARLESTON ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD AVENUE NUE BARRON AVENUE Miles AMARANTA AVENUE February \gis\fairmeadow2004.mxd LOS ROBLES AVENUE Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Better Lighting Along Path Drop-off Program: Encourage Parking Lot at Park for Drop-Off/Pick-Up MAYBELL AVENUE EL CAMINO WAY WILKIE WAY EL CAM Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Additional Crossing Guards Turn Restrictions: Allow for Left Turn into School Driveway from East Visibility Improvements: Relocate Bus/Shuttle Stop Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Improve Safety at Exit Driveway SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Legend School Buildings School Grounds Attendance Areas COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS FAIRMEADOW, HOOVER AND JANE LATHROP STANFORD SCHOOLS FIGURE 3D

17 PAGE MILL ROAD Traffic Law Enforcement: No U-Turns AMARILLO AVENUE Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Crossing Guard and Handicap Ramps Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Handicap Ramps Ohlone Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Crossing Guard GREER ROAD OREGON EXPRESSWAY MIDDLEFIELD ROAD COLORADO AVENUE ROSS ROAD LOUIS ROAD Neighborhood Friendly Road: Bicycle/Pedestrian Friendly Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Crossing Guard Traffic Calming: Reduce Speeds Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements: Crossing Guard LOMA VERDE AVENUE AMES AVE Palo Verde BAYSHORE FREEWAY Traffic Law Enforcement: Periodic Police Patrols Drop-Off Restrictions: Enforce Restricted Drop-Off Rules Parking Restrictions: Restrict Parking on Left Side of Road by Crosswalk EL DORADO AVENUE Traffic Congestion: Restrict 2-way Traffic During Certain Hours COWPER STREET Turn Restrictions: No Turn on Red During School Commute Hours EAST MEADOW DRIVE Legend School Buildings School Grounds Miles BRYANT ST WAVERLY STREE Attendance Areas February \gis\paloverde2004.mxd COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS OHLONE AND PALO VERDE SCHOOLS FIGURE 3E

18 III. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The second stage of the involved compiling available traffic data collected and provided by the City of Palo Alto, and field studies conducted by Fehr & Peers staff. The purposes of the task were to (a) identify traffic concerns related to student safety and recommend ways to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety, and (b) reduce accident potential and traffic congestion along the intersections and corridors identified by the SAC as a result of their review of the Summary of Issues presented in Chapter II. Evaluation Techniques Study Locations The following roads and intersections in the southern part of Palo Alto were identified by the advisory committee as needing further study. The study corridors and intersections are also shown in Figure 4. Corridors Arastradero Road - Charleston Road from Foothill Expressway to Middlefield Road Meadow Drive from El Camino Way to Middlefield Road El Camino Way from Meadow Drive to El Camino Real Matadero Avenue from El Camino Real to Josina Avenue Los Robles Avenue from El Camino Real to Laguna Avenue Louis Road from Loma Verde Avenue to Greer Road Ames Avenue from Louis Road to Rorke Way Rorke Way from Ames Avenue (Loop) Barron Avenue from El Camino Real to Laguna Avenue Maybell Avenue from El Camino Real to Donald Drive Amaranta Avenue from Maybell Avenue to Los Robles Avenue Waverly Street from Meadow Drive to El Dorado Avenue Signalized Intersections El Camino Real at Matadero Avenue El Camino Real at Maybell Avenue El Camino Real at Charleston Road Arastradero Road at Terman Access Arastradero Road at Coulombe Drive Alma Street at Meadow Drive Meadow Drive at Waverly Street Meadow Drive at Middlefield Road Carlson Drive at Charleston Road Oregon Expressway at Louis Road Oregon Expressway at Greer Road Arastradero Road at Gunn Access Alma Street at Charleston Road 13

19 OREGON EXPRESSWAY PAGE MILL ROAD AMARILLO AVENUE ROSS ROAD COLORADO AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Ohlone LOUIS ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE GREER ROAD AMES AVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY Palo Verde El Carmelo EL DORADO AVENUE COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET EAST MEADOW DRIVE PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL MATADERO AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE Barron Park LAGUNA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE Juana Briones PARK BOULEVARD AMARANTA AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE ALMA STREET BRYANT STREET COULOMBE DRIVE EL CAMINO WAY MAYBELL AVENUE WEST MEADOW DRIVE WILKIE WAY Fairmeadow Jane Lathrop Stanford M.S. Hoover WEST CHARLESTON ROAD EL CAMINO REAL MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FOOT HILL EXPRESSWAY HILLVIEW AVENUE Henry Gunn H.S. ARASTRADERO ROAD Terman M.S. ARASTRADERO ROAD FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY Study Corridor Signalized Intersection Miles Unsignalized Intersection February \gid\study_roads.mxd STUDY CORRIDORS AND INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 4

20 Unsignalized Intersections Meadow Drive at El Camino Way Ames Avenue at Rorke Way Waverly Street at El Dorado Avenue Waverly Street at Loma Verde Avenue Bryant Street at Loma Verde Avenue Coulombe Drive at Maybell Avenue Louis Road at Amarillo Avenue Greer Road at Amarillo Avenue Georgia Avenue at Amaranta Avenue Evaluation Approach A primary objective of this study is to develop a rational, systematic, and objective approach to evaluating the relative safety of intersections and streets along school commute corridors in the southern part of Palo Alto. A definition of the term safety is important, for consistency and fairness in the study process. This study builds on past traffic engineering efforts to develop an objective measurement of safety so that the City of Palo Alto and its citizens can evaluate the relative condition of roads and intersections. There is inherent risk in all transportation modes, whether in an airplane, in a car, or on foot. No transportation facility can be made entirely safe for all users. The most common means of measuring safety is counting the number of accidents, injuries, and deaths per person using that mode. The scale of relative safety is based on this measurement, meaning that some modes (e.g., flying in a commercial aircraft) are considered safer than driving an automobile, because the rate of accidents per airplane passenger is lower than the rate per automobile driver. Unfortunately, while automobile accidents are fairly common, other types of accidents involving commercial aircraft or school children have high visibility, thereby eliciting a strong emotional response. There is a difference between public perceptions of a facility or travel mode being unsafe based on highly visible incidents, versus the reality reflected by carefully tabulated accident data. This study attempts to remove the subjectivity of perception from the evaluation to identify those facilities that rank lowest according to a variety of measurable criteria. It is not the intent of the study to guarantee that school commute routes can be made completely safe. Should children be encouraged to walk or ride their bicycles to school if there is no foolproof method for guaranteeing their safety? This decision must be made by parents alone. Unfortunately, the alternative driving children to school not only involves some risk, but also contributes directly to the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Evaluation Methodology There are standards for the design and implementation of crosswalks, pedestrian signals, minimum signal clearance intervals, signing, and other items that have been developed by Caltrans, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Cities such as Palo Alto generally adhere to these standards, although they are advisory in many cases and cities may develop their own standards as needed. 15

21 The methodology used in this study incorporates many of the concepts identified in the Citywide School Commute Safety Study. These concepts were developed from the available guidelines and research and generally address convenience, exposure and protection at each study road and intersection. A scoring mechanism for each criterion was developed in the Citywide School Commute Safety Study, reflecting the relative importance of that criterion. This study maintains this basic scoring mechanism. Each road and intersection was independently tested based on the available data collected and field investigations. Scoring of each road and intersection, using consistent criteria, identifies the relative differences between study locations and answers the question, How does this facility rank compared to other similar facilities? Evaluation Criteria The following definitions explain the applicability of the characteristics used in evaluating the pedestrian and bicycle performance measures at intersections and along corridors. These criteria, and the maximum number of points assigned to them, are presented in the Performance Measure worksheets provided in Appendices B, C, and D. Please note that there is no evaluation criterion for accident rates. Accident statistics, as discussed previously, can be misleading. This is especially true for pedestrian- and bicycle-related accidents, since these types of incidents: (a) may not occur frequently enough to be statistically reliable; (b) may or may not be related to physical or operational attributes; and (c) do not reflect the background activity of bicyclists and pedestrians. No Bike Route (Bicycle Corridors) refers to the presence or absence of on-street Class III (unstriped) bike routes. Class III bike routes are generally acceptable on low-traffic-volume collector and residential streets, but are less desirable when travel lanes are 14 feet wide or less. Wider curb lanes (greater than 14 feet) provide more clearance between vehicles and bicycles, thus reducing potential conflicts. Bike Lane With or Without Parking (Bicycle Corridors) refers to on-street Class II (striped) bike lanes on streets with or without curbside parking. The presence of the lane provides a visible separation between vehicle and bicycle flows. The standard width of Class II bike lanes varies from four to five feet, with a four-foot width generally acceptable only on low-traffic-volume streets. Narrower bike lanes on streets that permit curbside parking are less desirable. Ideal bike lanes on streets would be six feet wide, regardless of the traffic volume and curbside parking. Wider bike lanes can be interpreted by drivers as parking or even travel lanes. Bike Lanes in Relation to Traffic Volumes (Bicycle Corridors) refers to the likely friction between vehicles and bicycles, and is related to daily traffic volumes on the street. Generally, streets with less than 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and wide travel lanes do not require bike lanes. As traffic levels increase, bike lanes become more important, particularly if curb lanes are narrow (less than 14 feet). Bike lanes are more desirable at traffic volumes exceeding 10,000 vpd. Corridor Traffic Volumes (Pedestrian Corridors) refers to the relationship between average daily traffic along a corridor and the comfort level for pedestrians traveling along the corridor. Average traffic levels lower than 10,000 vpd provide a relatively comfortable pedestrian travel experience. When traffic exceeds 10,000 vpd, pedestrians become less comfortable due to congested crossings, motorist impatience, and noise. 16

22 Continuous Sidewalks (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors) refers to sidewalks on both sides of the street that are continuous throughout a corridor. Continuous sidewalks enable pedestrians and young bicyclists to travel safely through a corridor without entering vehicular travel lanes or other unsafe areas. Conflicts on continuous sidewalks are limited to intersecting streets, paths and driveways. On-Street Parking (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors) refers to parking in the street adjacent to the curb. Parking in this area creates many conflicts for bicyclists such as vehicles performing parking maneuvers, motorists opening doors, and restricted line of sight approaching intersections and driveways. For pedestrians, however, curbside parking provides a buffer between the sidewalk and vehicle lanes and is considered a positive characteristic. Street and Crossing Width (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors and Intersections) refers to curb-tocurb width either along the corridor or at intersecting streets. Along corridors, a width of 40 feet or less (typical residential street width) is desirable, particularly for pedestrians crossing at uncontrolled intersections. Widths greater than 40 feet are tolerable when a median refuge is provided, which enables pedestrians to cross the roadway with less vehicle exposure than without a median. Widths greater than 60 feet with a median refuge five feet or wider are generally tolerable, but may be uncomfortable for children. Intersection crossings greater than 60 feet in width without a median refuge are typically considered undesirable for pedestrians. Street Lighting (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors) refers to overhead street lights. Adequate lighting enables motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians to see each other at night and during the critical dusk and dawn periods. Good Maintenance (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors) refers to the condition of the road in terms of pavement condition, transverse ridges, debris in bike lanes and shoulders (street sweeping), trimming of foliage, etc. A well-maintained facility is more apt to be used and is generally safer for all users. Transit Interface (Pedestrian Corridors) refers to the availability of transit facilities such as bus stops along established pedestrian corridors. Providing transit facilities increases the corridor attractiveness for pedestrians. Maximum Spacing of Controlled Intersections (Pedestrian Corridors) refers to the availability of controlled pedestrian crossings along the corridor. Controlled pedestrian crossings provide an additional level of safety for pedestrians as they are given priority over vehicle and bicycle traffic. Controlled crossings for the purposes of this study include signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersections and intersections with crossing guards. Barrier Free (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors and Intersections) refers to facilities free of impediments to bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Barriers to safe pedestrian and bicycle flow might include lack of handicap ramps at intersections, signal and utility poles and mailboxes on sidewalks, and the presence of rolled curbs, which permit motorists to mount and partially block sidewalks. Corridor Speeds (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors) refers to the prevalent travel speed of vehicles along a corridor (not the posted speed limit). Studies have shown that pedestrian and bicycle accident severity is generally minor when vehicles travel 25 miles per hour (mph) or less; moderate with speeds between 25 and 35 mph; and severe or fatal at speeds greater than 35 mph. 17

23 Priority and Protection (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors) refers to exposure to vehicles along the corridor and at intersections. Dropping bike lanes, uncontrolled turning movements, cross-traffic priority, and the lack of bike and pedestrian facilities along the corridor and at intersections all expose pedestrians and bicyclists to vehicle traffic. Priority and protection enables pedestrians and bicyclists to proceed through intersections protected or without stopping, thus reducing delay and potential conflicts. Corridors with priority and protection are generally more desirable than corridors with partial or no priority or protection. Sight Distance (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors and Intersections) refers to adequate sight distance not hindered by foliage, parked cars, utility poles, street geometry, etc. Along corridors, numerous sight distance restrictions (e.g., road curvature and overgrown vegetation) can increase the potential for conflicts. At unsignalized intersections, adequate sight distance from the stop bar enables motorists to look for gaps in traffic without creeping into the crosswalk and forcing pedestrians and bicyclists to go around into the travel lane. Detached Sidewalk (Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors) refers to a separation of at least five feet between the sidewalk and the adjacent curb. This separation allows for tree planting and provides a buffer zone between vehicular traffic and the sidewalk, thus increasing the safety and comfort level for pedestrians and bicyclists using the sidewalk. Bike Clearance Interval (Bicycle Intersections) refers to the time required for bicyclists who enter a signalized intersection lawfully to clear the intersection before the signal changes. About six percent of urban car/bike accidents are attributed to bicyclists who are unable to clear an intersection. Bike Signal Controls (Bicycle Intersections) refers to the presence of loop detectors at the approaches of signalized intersections that allow bicyclists to trigger a green signal for them to cross when no vehicles are present on the street. Loop detectors with queue areas allow the bicyclist to trigger a green signal while stopped adjacent to the curb. These devices reduce impatience and delay and also reduce the potential for unlawful crossing against the signal light. Signal Phasing (Bicycles and Pedestrians Signalized Intersections) signal phases are divided into four classifications with increasing potential for conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists: 1. All-Pedestrian Phase offers the most protection for pedestrians (and bicyclists, if they are walking their bikes through the intersection), as all traffic must stop during this phase to allow pedestrians to cross the street. Right turns on red may or may not be prohibited. 2. Protected Left-Turn Phase (i.e., left turns get a green arrow) offers less protection for pedestrians and bicyclists. While they are protected from left-turning vehicles, they are subject to conflicts with right-turning vehicles on the green. 3. Split-Phase, allows all movements from one intersection approach to proceed while all other intersection approaches are red. Bicyclists and pedestrians are protected from the left-turn movement similar to the protected left-turn phase condition. Split-phase operation does offer less protection as right turns are given the green to proceed through the intersection and drivers may be less attentive to pedestrian and bicycle activity than protected left-turn phase. 4. Single Phase (e.g., permitted left turns) offers the least protection to pedestrians and bicyclists as they are exposed to both left- and right-turning vehicles. Furthermore, leftturning drivers are often inattentive to pedestrians and bicycles because they are watching for 18

24 gaps in oncoming traffic. Inattentiveness and impatience increases as volumes increase, the intersection becomes more congested, and left-turning delays increase. Right Turn Speeds (Bicycles and Pedestrians Intersections) refers to right-turning vehicle speeds at intersections. Intersection designs that have free right turns are not controlled by intersection controls and generally have higher speeds. These designs generally have pork-chop islands, which require pedestrians and bicyclists to cross over an uncontrolled high-speed movement. These movements can be made at speeds up to 30 or 40 mph on major roadways. The pork chop island can be designed to slow traffic and increase pedestrian visibility to motorists. Standard small radii (20 to 30 feet) intersections generally force right turns to slow. Crosswalks (Pedestrians Intersections) refers to crosswalk provisions on each approach at an intersection. The crosswalk alerts drivers to the potential for pedestrian activity. Right-Turn Restriction (Bicycles and Pedestrians Intersections) refers to how right-turning traffic is controlled at intersections. Vehicle right turns can have a high potential for conflicts with pedestrians and bicycles because motorists are often looking to their left for gaps in vehicle traffic and fail to observe pedestrians and bicycles to their right. Prohibiting right turns on red provides pedestrians and bicyclists a level of safety reducing this potential conflict. Permitting right turns on red provides the minimum level of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Right-Turn Conflicts (Bicycles and Pedestrians Intersections) refers to the level of exposure pedestrians and bicyclists are subject to from right-turning traffic. Generally, less than 200 vehicles per hour (vph) (i.e., three to four per minute) turning right is safe. Between 200 to 500 vph (4 to 8 per minute) turning right is less safe, but tolerable. Right-turn activity greater than 500 vph is considered undesirable for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian Signals (Pedestrians Intersections) refers to the existence of pedestrian signal heads showing the Walk and Don t Walk symbols. These devices reduce confusion for pedestrians and bicyclists by providing them with a definite indication of when to proceed. Further benefit is achieved with pedestrian countdown signals. These signals show both the Don t Walk symbol plus the remaining time for pedestrians to cross the intersection. Pedestrian activation buttons, like vehicle and bicycle detection loops, convey the presence of a pedestrian waiting to cross the intersection. Crossing Guard Present (Pedestrian Intersections) refers to intersections with an adult crossing guard. Crossing guards provide increased safety (through increased crossing visibility and traffic control) for children to cross the intersection. However, crossing guards are present during very limited hours, typically at school start and end times. Adequate Crossing Allowance (Pedestrian Intersections) refers to the time allotted to the pedestrian phase so that pedestrians can cross the intersection. The pedestrian crossing time incorporates a 7-second start-up time plus time required to cross the intersection (from curb to top of far ramp) at a walk speed of 3.5 feet per second. Signal Cycle Length (Pedestrian Intersections) refers to the amount of time required for a signal to cycle through serving all intersection traffic movements. Signal cycles greater than 120 seconds result in increased impatience and inattentiveness by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians waiting for their respective signal phases. 19

25 ADA Accessibility (Pedestrian Intersections) refers to intersection features that accommodate handicapped users, such as accessible pedestrian push buttons, handicap ramps, special sidewalk scoring, sidewalks without obstructions, etc. Data Collection Traffic Counts The City of Palo Alto provided a map of the major street traffic flows for This information, combined with select road segment traffic counts conducted by the City, is presented on Figure 5. Daily vehicle traffic levels are a good indication of the likely comfort level for pedestrian and bicycle users. Corridors with less than 5,000 vpd are conducive to both pedestrian and bicycle activities. As daily traffic volumes increase toward 10,000 vpd, pedestrian and bicycle comfort levels decrease and bike lanes are considered to separate bicycle and vehicle activities. Corridors with more than 10,000 vpd are not conducive to pedestrian activities and bike lanes are recommended to accommodate bicycle activities. As shown on Figure 5, the Arastradero-Charleston, Middlefield, and El Camino Real corridors are not conducive to pedestrian activities, and bicycle facilities (including bike lanes) are important roadway components. The other study facilities generally carry less than 5,000 vpd, indicating conditions consistent with pedestrian and bicycle activities. Corridor Speed Surveys The City provided speed survey data at 14 locations in the study area. The survey locations and the resulting 85 th percentile speeds are shown on Figure 6. The 85 th percentile speed indicates the speed that is exceeded by no more than 15 percent of passing vehicles. The California Vehicle Code indicates that 85 percent of the driving population travels at a speed which is considered safe and prudent for the particular conditions of any given roadway. The setting and enforcement of speed limits is often based on the 85 th percentile speed. The importance of corridor speeds as an evaluation criterion is that higher speeds result in more severe injuries when accidents between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists occur. Posted speed limits in the study area are generally 25 mph. Site-specific speed survey data was extrapolated to identify general corridor speed characteristics within the study area. Field observations were used to assess reasonableness of the speed characteristics. Corridors with 85 th percentile speeds equal to or greater than 35 mph include: Arastradero Road Charleston Road Oregon Expressway El Camino Real Alma Street Middlefield Road Corridors with 85 th percentile speeds between 30 and 35 mph include: Maybell Avenue Los Robles Avenue Meadow Avenue Loma Verde Avenue Waverly Street Louis Road 20

26 DONALD DRIVE 36,000 4,900 OH AMARILLO AVENUE GREER ROAD 42,000 OREGON EXPRESSWAY EL DORADO AVENUE 1,200 EC COLORADO AVENUE 17,000 COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET 4,700 4,500 LOUIS ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD RORKE WAY AMES AVENUE 16,000 PV 2,600 EAST MEADOW DRIVE 4,700 BP MATADERO AVENUE BARRON AVENUE LAGUNA AVENUE LA DONNA STREET LOS ROBLES AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL AMARANTA AVENUE ORME STREET JB ALMA STREET PARK BOULEVARD 3,100 5,000 4,000 2,500 BRYANT STREET MAYBELL AVENUE COULOMBE DRIVE 35,000 EL CAMINO WAY ARASTRADERO ROAD EAST MEADOW DRIVE WILKIE WAY 8,000 28,000 FM WEST CHARLESTON ROAD 18,500 50,000 JLS HV NELSON DRIVE CHARLESTON ROAD 18,000 17,500 FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY ARASTRADERO ROAD HG 20,600 20,000 TM Average Daily Traffic Greater than 20,000 Vehicles 10,000 to 20,000 Vehicles 5,000 to 10,000 Vehicles Less than 5,000 Vehicles Approximate Location of Volume Survey Source: 1999 Major Street Traffic Flow Map School Building Codes BP - Barron Park EC - El Carmelo FM - Fairmeadow HG - Henry Gunn High HV - Hoover JB - Juana Briones JLS - Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle OH - Ohlone PV - Palo Verde TM - Terman Middle March \gis\data\volumes8x11.mxd AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 5

27 40 mph OH AMARILLO AVENUE 26 mph OREGON EXPRESSWAY COLORADO AVENUE 37 mph 28 mph LOUIS ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE AMES AVENUE GREER ROAD 31 mph PV EL DORADO AVENUE EC COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET MIDDLEFIELD ROAD RORKE WAY 37 mph EAST MEADOW DRIVE BP MATADERO AVENUE BARRON AVENUE LAGUNA AVENUE LA DONNA STREET LOS ROBLES AVENUE JB ALMA STREET PARK BOULEVARD EL CAMINO REAL AMARANTA AVENUE ORME STREET DONALD DRIVE 32 mph 30 mph COULOMBE DRIVE MAYBELL AVENUE BRYANT STREET 40 mph EL CAMINO WAY ARASTRADERO ROAD EAST MEADOW DRIVE WILKIE WAY 32 mph 36 mph FM JLS WEST CHARLESTON ROAD 35 mph HV CHARLESTON ROAD 37 mph 38 mph 35 mph NELSON DRIVE FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY ARASTRADERO ROAD HG 37 mph TM 85th Percentile Speeds 35 mph and Greater 30 to 34 mph Less than 30 mph Approximate Location of Speed Survey Source: Corridor Speed Characteristics Extrapolated from Select Speed Surveys and Field Observations School Building Codes BP - Barron Park EC - El Carmelo FM - Fairmeadow HG - Henry Gunn High HV - Hoover JB - Juana Briones JLS - Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle OH - Ohlone PV - Palo Verde TM - Terman Middle March \gis\data\speeds8x11.mxd VEHICLE SPEEDS FIGURE 6

28 Corridors with 85 th percentile speeds less than 30 mph include: Amaranta Avenue El Camino Way Colorado Avenue Amarillo Avenue Vehicle speeds generally exceeded 30 mph except along the shorter corridors. Typically, speeds up to about 35 mph can be expected along street corridors with posted speeds of 25 mph. Speeds greater than 35 mph on a 25 mph-posted facility indicate that drivers do not perceive the posted speed limit as appropriate. The Arastradero-Charleston corridor represents this situation as the corridor is posted for 25 mph and the 85 th percentile speed is 35 mph or greater. Bicycle Corridor Activity Bicycle counts were provided by the City of Palo Alto. Extensive bicycle counts were conducted in 1997 at several intersections within the study area. These counts were conducted for the morning period between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and during the afternoon period between 2:30 and 6:30 PM. The intersection turning movement count data was used to quantify the level of bicycle activity along the road corridors being studied. The greatest morning bicycle activity generally occurred between 7:30 and 8:30 AM, which coincides with school times. Meadow Drive bicycle activity during the morning ranged from 100 to 140 bicyclists with the greatest concentration in the vicinity of the Fairmeadow and Jane Lathrop Stanford schools. Bicycle activity was lowest along the Arastradero-Charleston corridor with about 30 riders, except near Gunn High School where about 70 riders were counted. Volumes in the remaining study corridors were generally between 50 and 70 riders. Afternoon bicycle activity peaked either between 2:45 and 3:45 PM, which coincides with school end times, or between 5:15 and 6:15 PM, coinciding with commute and recreational riders. The level of PM peak hour activity was similar to the AM peak hour activity along each corridor. Bicycle volume characteristics along Charleston Road west of El Camino Real coincided with school end times. East of El Camino Real, however, bicycle activity peaked during the evening commute period, indicating that bicycle riding associated with the Hoover, Fairmeadow, and Jane Lathrop Stanford schools is limited. The level of bicycle activity within the study area generally indicates a healthy environment for bicyclists. The exception is along the Arastradero-Charleston corridor, especially in the vicinity of the elementary and middle schools. Vehicle traffic along the corridor is about 20,000 vpd and vehicle speeds exceed 35 mph. These conditions contribute to bicyclists, especially school children, avoiding the corridor by using alternative routes or, more likely, alternative travel modes such as a passenger in a vehicle. School Crossing Guard Location Activity Recent bicycle data from fall of 2003 were obtained from school crossing guards who counted students using bicycles. Data are available only during the times that the crossing guards are on duty, generally from 7:30 to 8:30 AM and from 2:30 to 3:30 PM. The results are shown on Figure 7A. The data indicate relatively heavy student bicycle activity along East Meadow Drive near Fairmeadow and Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle, along Coulombe Drive near Juana Briones, and along Arastradero Road in the vicinity of Terman Middle and Gunn High. Relatively 23

29 small numbers of student cyclists were observed at crossings near the Ohlone, Palo Verde, and Barron Park elementary schools. Data were also available about students walking to and from school, as observed by the crossing guards. The patterns for student pedestrians were similar to those for student cyclists, as shown on Figure 7B. Relatively high numbers of pedestrians were observed along East Meadow Drive, Coulombe Drive, and Arastradero Road, with somewhat lower volumes on Charleston Road and Loma Verde Avenue. 24

30 OREGON EXPRESSWAY EL DORADO AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD El Carmelo 7 (5) AMARILLO AVENUE ROSS ROAD COLORADO AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET Ohlone LOUIS ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE GREER ROAD 10 (7) AMES AVE. 30 (29) BAYSHORE FREEWAY Palo Verde EAST MEADOW DRIVE PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL MATADERO AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE 18 (14) BARRON AVENUE Barron Park LAGUNA AVENUE 12 (16) PARK BOULEVARD AMARANTA AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE ALMA STREET Juana Briones 77 (78) BRYANT STREET 20 (19) MAYBELL AVENUE WILKIE WAY EL CAMINO WAY 20 (19) 30 (40) 45 (40) Fairmeadow 13 (11) 45 (46) WEST CHARLESTON ROAD EL CAMINO REAL Jane Lathrop Stanford M.S. 10 (13) Hoover 15 (12) 21 (17) 36 (40) MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FOOT HILL EXPRESSWAY HILLVIEW AVENUE 45 (44) 60 (58) Henry Gunn H.S. ARASTRADERO ROAD Terman M.S. ARASTRADERO ROAD Legend School Buildings FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY School Grounds Miles XX (YY) = AM (PM) School Commute Hours Bicycle Volumes February \gid\bikes2004.mxd BICYCLE VOLUMES OBSERVED BY SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS FIGURE 7A

31 OREGON EXPRESSWAY EL DORADO AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD El Carmelo 21 (22) AMARILLO AVENUE ROSS ROAD COLORADO AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD COWPER STREET WAVERLY STREET Ohlone LOUIS ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE GREER ROAD 36 (33) AMES AVE. 38 (35) BAYSHORE FREEWAY Palo Verde EAST MEADOW DRIVE PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL MATADERO AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE 30 (35) Barron Park LAGUNA AVENUE 8 (12) PARK BOULEVARD AMARANTA AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE ALMA STREET Juana Briones 69 (63) BRYANT STREET 15 (18) MAYBELL AVENUE WILKIE WAY EL CAMINO WAY 12 (7) 25 (35) 35 (30) Fairmeadow 40 (35) 75 (80) WEST CHARLESTON ROAD EL CAMINO REAL Jane Lathrop Stanford M.S. 10 (9) Hoover 30 (34) 37 (30) 36 (39) MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SAN ANTONIO AVENUE 40 (42) FOOT HILL EXPRESSWAY HILLVIEW AVENUE 65 (61) Henry Gunn H.S. ARASTRADERO ROAD Terman M.S. ARASTRADERO ROAD Legend School Buildings FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY School Grounds Miles XX (YY) = AM (PM) School Commute Hours Pedestrian Volumes February \gid\peds2004.mxd PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES OBSERVED BY SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS FIGURE 7B

32 Data Evaluation Corridor Performance Measures Corridor performance measures were calculated for 12 corridors using the evaluation criteria listed previously in this section. All corridor scores were normalized to 100, representing the percent of potential points available. The scoring was sub-divided into categories including Very Good, Good, Tolerable, and Undesirable. This scoring system is consistent with that used in the Citywide School Commute Safety Study. The weighting of each criterion was accomplished by an initial allotment of points based on relative importance to other criteria, and then multiplied by a weighting factor which reflected: (a) convenience, (b) exposure, or (c) protection. Characteristics primarily for convenience are given less weight than those for protection. The normalized scores themselves are the most important output, showing the relative ranking of corridors. A high score and Very Good ranking does not mean that the corridor is 100 percent safe or ideal for school commuters; rather, it indicates that the facility provides a better environment for pedestrians and/or bicyclists relative to other study facilities. Table 2 summarizes the corridor performance measures. Corridor TABLE 2 CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE Pedestrian Bicycle Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance Arastradero Road/Charleston Road 67 Tolerable 69 Tolerable Meadow Drive 71 Good 79 Good El Camino Way 71 Good 47 Tolerable Matadero Avenue 32 Undesirable 42 Tolerable Los Robles Avenue 50 Tolerable 69 Tolerable Louis Road 80 Good 89 Good Ames Avenue 63 Tolerable 66 Tolerable Rorke Way 63 Tolerable 63 Tolerable Barron Avenue 29 Undesirable 40 Undesirable Maybell Avenue 38 Undesirable 35 Undesirable Amaranta Avenue 41 Tolerable 51 Tolerable Waverly Street 79 Good 74 Good Performance Classifications 90 to 100 Very Good 70 to 89 Good 41 to 69 Tolerable 0 to 40 Undesirable 1 Scores are normalized to 100. Source: Fehr & Peers, July

33 Pedestrian Evaluation Pedestrian conditions for each corridor were analyzed using 11 different criteria. Evaluation categories such as facility conditions, intersection spacing, and priority and protection had 12-point scoring potential. Categories with 9-point scoring potential included on-street parking provisions and barrier-free. The remaining categories each had a 6-point potential. Four corridors ranked as Good, scoring at least 70 out of 100 points (normalized). Five corridors ranked as Tolerable. The remaining three locations, including Matadero Avenue, Barron Avenue, and Maybell Avenue, scored Undesirable. These three corridors do not provide sidewalks, the road conditions are poor, and there is no priority or protection for pedestrians. Bicycle Evaluation Bicycle conditions are strongly correlated with the level of traffic volume on the roadway combined with the type of bicycle facilities available. Traffic volume levels in combination with lane widths and bike lanes represent a 50-point scoring potential. Facility conditions represent a 15-point potential while priority and protection represents a 12-point potential. The remaining categories are represented by a 6-point potential, with the exception of parking which is represented by an 8-point potential. Three corridors ranked as Good while seven corridors ranked as Tolerable. Two corridors, Maybell Avenue and Barron Avenue, ranked Undesirable. The Matadero Avenue corridor, while it scored as Tolerable, is on the threshold of being Undesirable. The scores for these three corridors are low because there are no sidewalks or bicycle facilities and there is no priority and protection for bicyclists. Intersection Performance Measures Intersection performance measures were calculated for 22 intersections (13 signalized and nine unsignalized) using the evaluation criteria described previously. A similar scoring system was used for intersections as for corridors, with scores normalized to 100 points and an associated ranking (Very Good, Good, Tolerable, and Undesirable) assigned. A summary of intersection performance measures is shown in Tables 3 and 4. Pedestrian Evaluation Pedestrians at signalized intersections were analyzed using 12 criteria, while unsignalized intersections were analyzed using eight criteria. Pedestrian signals had an 18-point potential score while signal operations and crossing allowance each had a 12-point potential. Several categories had 9-point potentials including crosswalk provisions, right-turn restrictions, presence of crossing guards, and barrier-free. The remaining categories had 6-point potentials. Five signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection ranked as Good while six signalized and six unsignalized intersections ranked as Tolerable. The two study intersections on Oregon Expressway (at Louis Road and Greer Road) each ranked as Undesirable, primarily because of inadequate pedestrian crossing times, signal operations and lack of ADA accessibility features. The unsignalized intersections of East Meadow Drive/El Camino Place and Ames Avenue/Rorke Way ranked Undesirable due to accessibility issues such as lack of crosswalks and ramps. 28

34 Corridor TABLE 3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE Pedestrian Bicycle Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance El Camino Real at Matadero Avenue 70 Good 57 Tolerable El Camino Real at Maybell Avenue 67 Tolerable 52 Tolerable El Camino Real at Charleston Road 65 Tolerable 49 Tolerable Arastradero Road at Terman Access 88 Good 79 Good Arastradero Road at Coulombe Road 49 Tolerable 45 Tolerable Alma Street at Meadow Drive 65 Tolerable 45 Tolerable Meadow Drive at Waverly Street 83 Good 79 Good Meadow Drive at Middlefield Road 80 Good 70 Good Carlson Drive Charleston Road 79 Good 75 Good Oregon Expressway at Louis Road 37 Undesirable 27 Undesirable Oregon Expressway at Greer Road 37 Undesirable 27 Undesirable Arastradero Road at Gunn High School 67 Tolerable 64 Tolerable Charleston Road at Alma Street 71 Good 63 Tolerable Performance Classifications 90 to 100 Very Good 70 to 89 Good 41 to 69 Tolerable 0 to 40 Undesirable 1 Scores are normalized to 100. Source: Fehr & Peers, July Corridor TABLE 4 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE Pedestrian Bicycle Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance East Meadow at El Camino Way/Maybell 32 Undesirable 75 Good Ames Avenue at Rorke Way 40 Undesirable 83 Good Waverly Street at El Dorado Avenue 68 Tolerable 83 Good Waverly Street at Loma Verde Avenue 74 Good 79 Good Bryant at Loma Verde Avenue 68 Tolerable 79 Good Coulombe Drive at Maybell Avenue 63 Tolerable 75 Good Louis Road at Amarillo Avenue 49 Tolerable 58 Tolerable Greer Road at Amarillo Avenue 65 Tolerable 83 Good Georgia Avenue at Amaranta Avenue 51 Tolerable 83 Good Performance Classifications 90 to 100 Very Good 70 to 89 Good 41 to 69 Tolerable 0 to 40 Undesirable 1 Scores are normalized to 100. Source: Fehr & Peers, July

35 Bicycle Evaluation Bicycle performance measures at signalized intersections incorporated seven criteria; unsignalized intersections incorporated four. The most heavily weighted criteria were bicycle signal controls, with a scoring potential of 16 points. Signal operations and bicycle clearance intervals each had scoring potentials of 12 points. Right-turn restrictions were represented by a 9-point potential and the remaining categories each had 6-point scoring potential. Eleven signalized and all nine unsignalized locations scored either Good or Tolerable. The two signalized intersections on Oregon Expressway (at Louis Road and Greer Road) ranked as Undesirable. Bicycle clearance intervals, bicycle signal controls, and barriers all contributed to the poor ranking at these two intersections. Evaluation Summary The application of the performance measures was successful, assisting in the stratification of intersections and corridors according to objective performance measures. Readers should note that scoring could be manipulated by adjusting criteria weighting, and that the scores are often so close that actual differences between locations may be non-existent. It is recommended that the performance measures continue to be refined based on the SAC s input, and that further comparisons with actual field conditions and recorded observations be performed. The benefit of the performance criteria is that they lend themselves to isolating the types of improvements (slowing traffic, installing a crossing guard, constructing bike lanes, etc.) that will improve a location s score. They also provide the City with flexibility in seeking different solutions at each location based on physical and operational constraints. 30

36 IV. ANALYSIS FINDINGS AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS The final stage of the involved reviewing the results of the data analysis presented in Section 3, drawing conclusions about issues in specific study locations, and evaluating improvements that may be applicable to the problems identified. Findings Based On Data Analysis The following paragraphs review the results of the analysis for both corridors and intersections, and provide discussion of the issues raised through the earlier stages of the study process. Following each section, tables list potential improvements that could be considered to address the problems identified for each study location. These improvements, identified either through field investigation or as a result of the performance measure analysis, would generally raise the corridor and intersection performance measures. Most of the improvements are simple to implement (e.g., improved maintenance, handicap ramps, speed enforcement, pedestrian signal controls, etc.). However, some of the improvements (e.g., adding bike lanes and continuous sidewalks, widening roads, replacing roll curbs with barrier curbs), while effective, may be more difficult to implement due to cost, right-of-way availability, or other concerns. Corridors The Arastradero Road Charleston Road corridor carries higher levels of traffic at higher speeds than any of the other study corridors. The higher speeds are generally not observed around school start and end times when traffic turning to and from the corridor is heaviest and traffic congestion levels are substantial. The inter-relationship between commute and school traffic along the corridor is best observed in the vicinity of Gunn High School. Turning traffic demands to and from the high school exceed the practical turning capacity. The result is vehicle queues that extend west to Foothill Expressway and east to about Coulombe Drive, which also serves Terman Middle School. Typical solutions would be to provide additional turning capacity to and from Gunn High School. Additional turn capacity exiting the school is a practical solution that would require traffic signal modifications. Additional turning capacity into the high school is more problematic as there is inadequate right-ofway to add lanes on Arastradero Road. Further compounding the problem is the entry drive to the high school, which narrows from two lanes to one. This narrowing results in congestion that extends back to Arastradero Road, thereby reducing entry capacity. In addition to the problems observed around Gunn High School, the Arastradero Road Charleston Road corridor also experiences traffic congestion in front of Hoover immediately around school times. Traffic congestion on the school site is substantial, but does not cause back-ups onto Charleston Road. In general, high traffic volumes and the relative location of the school driveway to Carlson Drive limit opportunities for left-turn pocket installations. The driveway and Carlson Drive intersections are too close to install a left-turn pocket that would provide sufficient vehicle storage without adversely impacting traffic turning to and from Carlson Drive. In order to install a left-turn pocket, the on-site school circulation would need to be reversed. Left-turn pocket installation would better separate school and non-school traffic and reduce driver frustration. The City Council adopted a plan to reduce the number of through lanes along the corridor based on a careful study. Other options that focus on pedestrians include such items as intersection bulb-outs. These ideas and others should be developed through the local neighborhood/school group with city facilitation. The 31

37 group should be responsible for identifying candidate solutions and associated issues (both positive and negative) and then, as a group, deciding which potential solutions merit further study. Maybell Avenue has increased in importance as the Terman Middle School opens and the corridor is used to access Terman, Juana Briones, and, to a lesser extent, Gunn High. The Maybell Avenue corridor provides an alternative route to Arastradero Road, as the two corridors run parallel to one another. The Maybell Avenue corridor is typified by varied cross-sections, discontinuous sidewalks, and haphazard parking, which reduce the corridor s attractiveness to pedestrian and bicycle users. Focused improvements, such as sidewalk gap closures, are relatively easy to install; however, the corridor lacks a consistent theme that alerts drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists to corridor prioritization. Corridor changes are dependent on right-of-way availability and cost. The Los Robles Avenue corridor represents one low-cost option to consider in upgrading Maybell Avenue. Corridor prioritization is achieved on Los Robles Avenue by dividing the paved roadway into a single vehicle travel way with a striped shoulder on either side. Vehicles are parked outside the paved area. The minimum right-of-way to achieve this theme is 46 feet. A theme that incorporates sidewalks, parking lanes, and bike lanes requires approximately 58 feet of right-of-way. The importance of Los Robles Avenue to school-related activities is expected to vary with the number of school-age children living in the area. The corridor does not rank well for pedestrians as there are no sidewalks and there is parking along the corridor. The corridor does illustrate an innovative approach to road design in a semi-rural environment. Typical design features would incorporate pavement for vehicle lanes, bike lanes, curb / gutter, sidewalks and landscaping. These features are costly and, as in the case of Los Robles, are not consistent with the character of the area. In the case of Los Robles, the roadway cross-section respects the lower traffic volumes (i.e., less than 5,000) by incorporating narrow lanes, striped non-motorized areas, and parking off pavement. These features define the corridor uses while maintaining a rural character consistent with the neighborhood. Barron and Matadero Avenues are generally in poor condition as much of the corridors are unimproved (i.e., no sidewalks, poor pavement conditions, no bike lanes, inconsistent parking layouts). These corridors do not appear to provide the same opportunities as the Maybell Avenue corridor as both have curves that limit improvement opportunities such as narrow lanes. Major reconstruction would be necessary to incorporate a consistent theme along these two corridors. Lowcost changes such as those along Los Robles would require elimination of parking used by the adjacent residential users. East Meadow Drive is maintained well and has a cross-section that includes vehicle lanes, bike lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks. The rolled curb allows parked cars to encroach into the sidewalk area; however, replacing them with barrier curbs is a costly alternative. Parking and the bike lane are shared on one side of East Meadow Drive. While this situation is not ideal, it does recognize the fact that adjacent residents do require on-street parking and that during the day the area is generally kept clear for school children. There are a few locations along the corridor where handicap ramps are not provided. Observations suggest that this is more of an issue for older residents using the corridor for recreation and exercise. Nevertheless, installation of handicap ramps would enhance the corridor s pedestrian function. Intersections Signalized intersections in Palo Alto are generally supportive of pedestrians and bicyclists: vegetation is trimmed regularly on most corridors with signalized intersections, most intersections have 32

38 pedestrian signal heads, and many have right-turn-on-red restrictions. Bicycle detection could be improved at some locations by better defining the detection area, extending the loop detector to the curb, and/or installing bicycle push buttons. These could be effective treatments for minor street approaches to signalized intersections. Extending the initial green time at side streets to signalized intersections could also serve to benefit bike riders. Overall, the greatest improvement to signalized intersections would be to install pedestrian countdown heads and No Right Turn on Red When Children Present signs. Unsignalized intersections tend to work well for vehicles, but typically cause sight distance issues for cyclists, who often need to move into the intersection to confirm that they can safely proceed across. Pedestrian sight distance is usually adequate at unsignalized intersections, as long as parked cars are not present near the intersection. Sight distance can be further improved with the use of red-curb and curb extensions. These treatments are often more effective for pedestrians and bike users as they take longer to negotiate an intersection from a stop-controlled approach. Other potential improvements for both signalized and unsignalized intersections are briefly identified below: The intersections along Oregon Expressway are classified as Undesirable. Improvement of the intersections would require an engineering study that focuses on intersection design alternatives and features to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist crossings. Improved median treatments, upgraded signal systems, and possibly geometric changes would be addressed in the study. Intersections along El Camino Real would benefit from slower-speed right turns. This is especially true at the Charleston Road intersection, which permits high-speed right-turns independent of the intersection signal system. The short frontage road segment at the northeast corner of the Meadow Drive/Alma Street intersection is an uncommon design feature in that it is immediately adjacent to the signalized intersection and accommodates both left- and right-turning traffic movements. The right-turn movement is made at high speeds requiring pedestrians and bicyclists to use extra caution when traveling on Meadow Drive. Solutions such as closing the frontage road segment or prohibiting specific turn movements would improve the intersection performance ranking; however, the frontage road does provide access to residential and business areas, so close coordination with affected users would be essential before implementing changes. Additional turning capacity to and from Gunn High School at Arastradero Road is an essential component in reducing traffic congestion. Limited congestion relief can be achieved in the morning by extending the two-lane entry cross-section further into the high school. Lane restriping at the high school exit with applicable traffic signal changes would reduce congestion leaving the high school. Improving the bike lane on Arastradero Road approaching Gunn High School should also be considered; the current bike lane is narrow and makes bicycle riding uncomfortable. Barriers at the Meadow Drive/Waverly Street intersection have the greatest impact on the performance measure ranking. Specifically, a utility pole located in the sidewalk at the intersection impedes pedestrian flows. Relocating the utility pole a costly change may be constrained by the available right-of-way. Foliage at the intersection limits sight distances and, to a lesser extent, constrains pedestrian flows. Trimming the foliage is a straightforward and lowcost improvement. Arastradero Road at Coulombe Road and Charleston Road at Carlson Drive represent typical intersections along the Arastradero-Charleston corridor in that they provide a four-lane cross- 33

39 section with a combination bike/parking lane on one side of the street and a bike lane only on the other side. Uses near both intersections are predominantly residential, with the Terman School near Coulombe Road and the Hoover School near Carlson Drive. Signal upgrades (except countdown pedestrian signals) and right-turn restrictions have been incorporated into the Carlson Drive traffic signal, while there are limited signal upgrades at the Coulombe Road intersection. For pedestrians and bicyclists, both intersections could benefit from reducing the Arastradero- Charleston cross-section from four to two lanes and installing left-turn lanes and/or center medians as adopted by the City Council in January The unsignalized intersections studied can all be improved with either handicap ramps and/or sight distance improvements such as foliage trimming, red curb, and/or curb extensions. For example, a red curb at the Louis Road/Amarillo Avenue intersection would improve sight distance and intersection operations by relocating vehicles that now park at the intersection and block sight distance and maneuverability. Alternative Solutions Based on the data analysis presented above, as well as field investigations and the outreach efforts to the local community, a master list of potential physical improvements and traffic engineering solutions has been developed. The solutions are derived from the desirable attributes of corridors and intersections identified in the performance measures worksheets, and are reflective of those discussed above. The potential solutions are summarized in Table 5, which also identifies alternative implementation techniques and the type of facility to which each solution may be applicable. Following the summary table is a discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each improvement, along with possible feasibility issues. Widen Outside Lane or Provide Separate Bike Lane Narrow travel lanes shared with motor vehicles can present hazards for inexperienced cyclists. Providing travel lanes greater than 14 feet wide increases cyclist comfort and safety. Alternatively, a separate bicycle lane can be provided, which further increases cyclist safety and encourages driver attentiveness to the possibility that cyclists may be present. A striped bike lane requires 6 feet from curb face on streets without parking, and at least 12 feet on streets with parking. Advantages Increases comfort and safety of cyclists Striped lane provides visible delineation between bicycle and vehicle traffic Disadvantages Allocating roadway width to cyclists may result in trade-offs for other users, such as reduced parking or travel lanes Widening street to accommodate bike lane or wider outside travel lane may be expensive, depending on right-of-way availability Feasibility Issues Physical feasibility may be limited by available roadway capacity or right-of-way availability Restriping travel lanes may be done at moderate cost, while adding pavement width would be a higher-cost option 34

40 TABLE 5 MASTER LIST OF POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS No. Potential Improvement Implementation Methods 1. Widen outside travel lane or provide separate bike lane Restripe existing lanes to separate bike lane from travel lane or parking Narrow travel lanes Eliminate or restrict parking Implement road diet Widen street 2. Reduce speeds Install radar speed monitors Reduce free right turns Install traffic calming elements 3. Provide pedestrian support facilities Install crosswalks Construct sidewalks to close gaps 4. Improve sight distance Remove on-street parking at corners Trim/remove obstructing vegetation Install curb extensions, advance limit lines, or advance yield lines 5. Reduce street crossing width Install curb extensions Construct median refuge 6. Provide good maintenance Institute consistent striping/sign maintenance program Provide consistent vegetation control Establish pavement repair program Increase scheduled street sweeping on major bicycle routes 7. Remove barriers to access Install curb ramps and accessible push buttons Relocate utility poles or other obstructions on sidewalks and bike lanes Establish standards for sidewalk furniture placement 8. Improve accommodation for pedestrians at signalized intersections 9. Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles 10. Improve accommodation for bicyclists at signalized intersections 11. Define consistent theme for corridors and intersections. Source: Fehr & Peers, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads Increase minimum green time Improve vehicle signal head visibility Provide crossing guard where warranted Remove uncontrolled right turns Install No Right Turn on Red when Children Present signs or other right-turn restrictions Prohibit all right turns on red Provide crossing guard where warranted Provide separate bike queue areas with loop detection and loop detection stencils Extend bike lanes through intersection Increase minimum green time Provide a uniform cross-section along entire corridor Clearly define areas for different users, such as leftturn pockets or medians Applicable Facilities Corridors Corridors Corridors/ Intersections Corridors/ Intersections Intersections Corridors Intersections Intersections Intersections Intersections Corridors/ Intersections 35

41 Reduce Speeds High travel speeds affect the safety of all road users, including motorists as well as pedestrians and cyclists. Speeds can be moderated by strict enforcement of speed limits, although that typically requires an ongoing commitment of staff resources by local law enforcement. An innovative method used to make motorists aware of their speed is to install radar monitors that display the speed of passing cars in conjunction with a speed limit sign. Other options include installation of traffic calming devices designed to reduce vehicular travel speeds, such as speed humps or traffic circles. At intersection locations, the availability of free right turns for vehicles and wide corner radii accommodate higher speeds for turning vehicles. Compact intersection design, including small corner radii and the elimination of free right turns can mitigate this concern. Advantages Improves safety by reducing accident frequency and severity Reduces traffic noise as speeds are reduced Disadvantages Cost of installation and maintenance Radar monitors should not be overused, or they may lose effectiveness Compact intersection design may impact larger vehicles Feasibility Issues Generally physically feasible and relatively inexpensive Provide Pedestrian Support Facilities Support facilities encourage walking by creating a more attractive and supportive environment. Such facilities can include crosswalks at intersections, sidewalks in areas that currently have gaps in the pedestrian walkway system, or amenities such as benches, water fountains and transit shelters. Advantages Improves the walking environment and pedestrian safety Disadvantages May increase capital and maintenance costs Feasibility Issues Subject to limitations of available space and location of existing utilities Crosswalk installation is inexpensive Installation of new sidewalks and other amenities may involve moderate costs Improve Sight Distance Some intersections require drivers and/or cyclists to creep forward to view oncoming traffic and assess gaps in flow. This can create an unsafe condition for cyclists, who may be forced into the path of oncoming traffic, and also for pedestrians when crosswalks are blocked by stopped vehicles. Sight distance can often be improved by trimming overgrown vegetation or by prohibiting on-street 36

42 parking immediately adjacent to the corners of the intersection. Curb extensions improve sight distance for pedestrians at intersections by extending the sidewalk further into the crossing location. Advance limit lines are lines painted at signalized intersections at least eight feet before the crosswalk, instructing motorists to stop before obstructing the crosswalk. Advance yield lines are similar to advance limit lines, but are typically installed at mid-block crossing locations. Advantages Improves safety for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians Disadvantages Removal of on-street parking may inconvenience neighborhood residents or businesses Feasibility Issues Parking removal is generally physically feasible and inexpensive Curb extensions are more expensive and may also require parking removal, and must be carefully designed to avoid conflicts with cyclists Reduce Street Crossing Width Long street crossings increase exposure time for pedestrians and cyclists, and may trap slower individuals in medians or in travel lanes. Reducing crossing width increases safety and reduces accident potential. The objective can be accomplished by providing a median refuge on relatively wide streets, or by installing bulb-outs at street corners to reduce overall distance between sidewalks. Advantages Reduces exposure time for pedestrians and cyclists Increases safety for children and those who require extra time to cross the street Disadvantages May create obstructions for vehicles and cyclists if improperly designed Feasibility Issues Bulb-outs are most appropriate in areas with on-street parking Bulb-outs may require utility relocation or drainage work Provide Good Maintenance Facilities in poor condition not only have the potential to increase accidents, but to also discourage use. Consistent maintenance of streets, sidewalks and bicycle lanes benefits all users. Improvement measures can include consistent vegetation control, striping and sign maintenance, overlay and pavement repair, and a comprehensive approach to reporting and prioritizing maintenance problems. Advantages Improves safety for all users Removes barriers to walking or cycling 37

43 Disadvantages Increased costs Feasibility Issues Physically feasible, but requires budget commitment Remove Barriers to Access Obstructions that compromise access to a sidewalk reduce the usefulness of the facility, and may conflict with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The most common improvements to access are installation of curb ramps at crossings, accessible signals at signalized crossing locations, or removal of obstructions (e.g., utility poles) that block passage on a sidewalk. One strategy to create accessible travelways is to implement an ordinance that defines guidelines for the installation of newspaper racks and other sidewalk furniture. Advantages Improves safety for pedestrians Meets ADA standards for disabled access Reduces conflicts between pedestrians and other users Disadvantages Relocation of obstructions may be expensive Feasibility Issues Installation of ramps is generally physically feasible at relatively low cost Relocation of utilities may be quite expensive, and depends upon the availability of nearby locations Improve Accommodation for Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections Intersections controlled by a traffic signal can provide a safe environment for pedestrians who cross with the light. However, certain improvements can make an even more inviting and supportive environment for pedestrians. For example, reducing signal cycle lengths can improve the pedestrian experience. Signal cycle lengths greater than 120 seconds encourage pedestrian violations when gaps in traffic occur. Ideally, pedestrians should wait no more than 30 seconds to cross. Similarly, signals should be timed to allow an adequate amount of green time for pedestrians to safely reach the far side of the intersection. Installation of pedestrian signal heads that countdown the seconds remaining in the crossing period can further improve the level of information pedestrians have about when it is safe to cross a street. Finally, signals that allow an early release of pedestrians may reduce conflicts with turning vehicles. Advantages Improve safety for pedestrians by reducing accident potential Disadvantages May affect capacity of intersection for vehicle movements Isolated changes in signal timing may not work along corridors with synchronized signals set to a master cycle length 38

44 Feasibility Issues Physically feasible and relatively inexpensive Reduce Conflicts Between Pedestrians and Turning Vehicles Right-turning vehicles turn into crosswalks during the pedestrian crossing phase and increase conflicts and accident potential. Reducing or eliminating right-turn conflicts can be desirable, particularly where there is significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This can be accomplished by prohibiting right-turns on red entirely or during certain times of day. Conflicts can also be reduced by converting free right turns to controlled movements, by converting exclusive right-turn lanes into shared through-right lanes (see Reducing Speeds above). Pedestrian signals that allow an early release (see above) allow pedestrians to establish themselves in the crosswalk before motorists get a green light. Advantages Reduces conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles Can work well in conjunction with all-pedestrian phasing Disadvantages May reduce capacity of intersection, particularly on approaches with high right-turn volumes Increases potential for violations and cost of enforcement Feasibility Issues Generally physically feasible and inexpensive Operational effects require evaluation on case-by-case basis Improve Accommodation for Bicyclists at Signalized Intersections Intersections controlled by a traffic signal can provide a safe environment for cyclists who cross with the light. However, certain improvements can make an even more inviting and supportive environment for cyclists. For example, signals should be timed to allow an adequate amount of green time for cyclists to safely cross the intersection when the minimum phase time is triggered. Installation of bicycle loop detectors and loop detector stencils can provide a signal phase for cyclists without having to dismount or use the sidewalk. Application of this technique consistently throughout a corridor can encourage bicycle use of that corridor. Where bicycle or multi-use paths intersect signalized locations, a separate bicycle signal may be desirable. Where intersection locations have dedicated right-turn lanes and bicycle lanes, the bicycle lane should be striped to the left of the rightturn lane, and combination through/right-turn lanes should be discouraged. Advantages Improve safety for cyclists by reducing accident potential Permit signalized control for cyclists even when no vehicles are present Disadvantages May cause minimal increase in vehicle delay Feasibility Issues Physically feasible and relatively inexpensive 39

45 Define Consistent Theme for Corridors and Intersections Corridors made up of segments that vary in width, striping, presence of parking, or other characteristics can be confusing to motorists, as well as pedestrians and cyclists. There may be no clear area defined for the non-motorized user groups, so drivers do not know where to expect pedestrians and cyclists to be located. Clarifying the road areas available for different user groups can be accomplished in a number of ways. Turn pockets can be installed at intersections to separate turning vehicles from through vehicles. Medians can be constructed to provide a refuge for pedestrians as they cross the street. On a corridor level, benefits can be derived from providing a uniform cross-section, so there is a continuous set of travel lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, parking and other facilities along the entire length of the corridor. Advantages Produce consistent expectations among all user groups Improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians by providing a defined area for them to travel along an entire corridor Disadvantages May require additional right-of-way, and thus may affect adjacent uses (e.g., fences, landscaping, etc.) May cause a loss of parking capacity if adequate right-of-way is not available Construction cost Feasibility Issues Subject to right-of-way limitations Cost may be high, particularly if additional right-of-way is acquired Recommendations Based on the data collection efforts, field observations, analysis, and input from the technical committee, a number of site-specific recommendations have been identified. These recommendations are presented in Table 6 for corridors, Table 7 for signalized intersections, and Table 8 for unsignalized intersections. The tables also include the estimated schedule to complete the recommended improvements (ST= short-term, less than one year; MT=mid-term, 2 to 3 years; LT=long-term, 4+ years.) Preliminary cost estimates are also provided in the tables. The unit cost assumptions are included in the technical appendix. The resulting performance scores are provided in Tables 9 through 11. Improvements common to the general area include: Maintain and enhance signage at school areas Change sanitation schedules to occur outside school commute periods Trim vegetation Increase traffic enforcement at school sites during bell times Infill street lights at un-lit intersections and trim vegetation to ensure lighting efficiency 40

46 TABLE 6 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Corridor Improvement Recommendations / Notes Schedule Cost Arastradero Road / Install radar speed monitors at El Camino Real, Alma Street, and Middlefield Road to supplement those at the eastern ST $42,000 Charleston Road and western ends of the corridor (three locations, one in each direction) Implement the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor plan, including: Separate parking and bike lanes with striping. Color bike lanes. Reduce all travel lanes to 10 feet. Construct medians with left-turn pockets where needed. MT--LT TBD Meadow Drive Install curb ramps at select locations without ramps (estimated 20 new ramps) MT $50,000 Narrow lanes to 10 feet. MT TBD El Camino Way Install curb ramps at intersecting streets: James Road, Camino Court, West Meadow Drive (estimated 6 new ramps). MT $15,000 Resurface road. MT TBD Repeat road cross-section that currently exists on the north side of Meadow Drive, including parking removal on one side of the road and bike lane installations; or implement bike boulevard improvements. MT TBD Matadero Avenue Resurface road. ST TBD Install radar speed monitors (one in each direction). ST $14,000 Plan for continuous sidewalk along south side from El Camino Real to Josina Avenue. LT TBD Los Robles Avenue Conduct feasibility study for a sidewalk or path along one side of the roadway. LT TBD Louis Road Install curb ramps at Ames and other intersections along the corridor (estimated 22 new ramps). MT $55,000 Ames Avenue Install curb ramps (estimated 10 new ramps). MT $25,000 Install crosswalks on stop-controlled approaches. ST <$1,000 Rorke Way Remove some on-street parking at the corners to improve sight distance. ST <$5,000 Define student loading area on the school frontage with signs. ST $1,000 Barron Avenue Resurface road. ST TBD Deploy mobile radar speed trailers. ST TBD Consider reducing the 2-way vehicle travel lane to 18 feet to better-define the boundary between vehicles and bicycles/ pedestrians. ST TBD Plan for a continuous sidewalk or path along one side of the street. LT TBD Maybell Avenue Evaluate feasibility of implementing a corridor theme such as a 30-foot paved area (two 5-foot non-motorized areas and a 20-foot vehicle travel way). Parking would occur outside the paved area. Requires right-of-way analysis and future study. MT TBD Close sidewalk gap between Coulombe Drive and Amaranta Avenue. MT $16,000 Restripe between Thain and El Camino Real to include a 20-foot travel way and two 6-foot bike lanes. MT $3,000 Implement bike boulevard changes along the corridor from El Camino Way to Terman School (e.g., bicycle-friendly/traffic calming treatments). Study underway. Install radar speed monitors (one in each direction). MT ST TBD $14,000 Amaranta Avenue Upgrade street lighting. MT TBD Consider a corridor theme similar to Maybell recommendation (see above). Requires right-of-way analysis and future study. MT TBD Waverly Street No additional recommendations beyond the traffic calming measures recently implemented. ST N/A Source: Fehr & Peers,

47 TABLE 7 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Location Improvement Recommendations Schedule Cost El Camino Real at Bike stencil over side street detector loop. ST Staff time Matadero Avenue Adjust signal cycle length to minimize pedestrian wait times, without sacrificing optimal vehicle traffic congestion management. ST Staff time Increase minimum green time to seven seconds (if not already done). ST Staff time Install No Right Turn on Red When Children Are Present signs on all 4 approaches. ST $2,000 Increase pedestrian crossing time to reflect a rate of 3.5 ft./sec. ST Staff time Pedestrian countdown heads. MT $2,800 Split walk phases for side streets ST Staff time El Camino Real at Bike stencil over side street detector loop. ST Staff time Maybell Avenue Adjust signal cycle length to minimize pedestrian wait times, without sacrificing optimal vehicle traffic congestion management. ST Staff time Increase minimum green time to seven seconds (if not already done). ST Staff time Extend bike lane striping through the intersection. ST TBD Install No Right Turn on Red When Children Are Present signs on all 4 approaches. ST $2,000 Increase pedestrian crossing time to reflect a rate of 3.5 ft./sec. ST Staff time Pedestrian countdown heads. MT $2,800 El Camino Real at Charleston Road Adjust signal cycle length to minimize pedestrian wait times, without sacrificing optimal vehicle traffic congestion management. ST Staff time Increase minimum green time to seven seconds (if not already done). ST Staff time Extend bike lane striping through the intersection. ST TBD Install No Right Turn on Red When Children Are Present signs on all 4 approaches. ST $2,000 Increase pedestrian crossing time to reflect a rate of 3.5 ft./sec. ST Staff time Pedestrian countdown heads. MT $2,800 Remove uncontrolled right-turns, consistent with Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan MT TBD Arastradero Road at Bike stencil over side street detector loop. ST Staff time Terman Access Increase minimum green time to seven seconds (if not already done). ST Staff time Pedestrian countdown heads. MT $2,800 Arastradero Road at Bike stencil over side street detector loop. ST Staff time Coulombe Road Install No Right Turn on Red When Children Present signs. ST $2,000 Increase minimum green time to seven seconds. ST Staff time Improve vehicle signal head visibility. MT TBD Provide curb ramps. MT $10,000 Install crosswalk across Arastradero Road on the east side. (Introduces a left turn conflict.) MT <$1,000 Pedestrian countdown heads. MT $2,100 Provide pedestrian activation. MT TBD Meadow Drive at Bike stencil over side street loop. ST Staff time Alma Street Increase minimum green time to seven seconds (if not already done). Increase pedestrian crossing time to reflect a rate of 3.5 ft./sec. ST ST Staff time Staff time Provide pedestrian activation. MT TBD 42

48 TABLE 7 (CONTINUED) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Location Improvement Recommendations Schedule Cost Meadow Drive at Install No Right Turn on Red When Children Are Present signs on all approaches. MT $2,000 Alma Street (continued) Pedestrian countdown heads. MT $2,800 Consider eliminating access between Meadow Drive and the short Alma Street frontage road section, with provision of a new right-turn only driveway on Alma to serve the local residences. MT TBD Meadow Drive at Bike stencil over side street detector loop. ST Staff time Waverly Street Clear / trim bushes at the NW and NE corners. ST Staff time Pedestrian countdown heads. MT $2,800 Relocate the utility pole at the NW corner. MT TBD Install curb ramps. MT Meadow Drive at Middlefield Road Install No Right Turn on Red When Children Are Present signs. Increase pedestrian crossing time to reflect a rate of 3.5 ft./sec. ST ST $2,000 Staff time Pedestrian countdown heads. MT $2,800 Charleston Road at Carlson Drive Bike stencil over side street detector loop. Increase pedestrian crossing time to reflect a rate of 3.5 ft./sec. ST ST Staff time Staff time Pedestrian countdown heads. Implement recommendations from Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Study, including: MT MT $2,800 TBD Add an additional crosswalk across Charleston. Construct intersection curb extensions/median. Oregon Expressway at Louis Road Prepare an engineering study to consider pedestrian countdown heads, separate bike queue areas with loop detection, curb ramps, and median redesign, among other elements. MT TBD Install No Right Turn on Red When Children Are Present signs on all approaches. MT $2,000 Oregon Expressway at Greer Road Prepare an engineering study to consider pedestrian countdown heads, separate bike queue areas with loop detection, curb ramps, and median redesign, among other elements. MT TBD Install No Right Turn on Red When Children Are Present signs on all approaches. MT $2,000 Arastradero Road at Implement the recommendations from the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Study: Gunn High School Pedestrian countdown heads. MT $2,100 Redesign the intersection by removing the signal poles in the median. Restripe the high school exit to include a left-turn lane and a shared left / right-turn lane, and bike lanes. MT $200,000 Extend the two-lane entrance further into the school site. MT TBD Widen Arastradero to provide right-turn lane into high school. MT TBD In addition, consider the following: Increase pedestrian crossing time to reflect a rate of 3.5 ft./sec. Bike stencil over side street detector loop. ST MT Staff time Staff time Work with the school district and water district to provide a second access from Arastradero Road. MT TBD Charleston Road at Pedestrian countdown heads. ST $2,800 Alma Street Increase minimum green time to seven seconds. Increase pedestrian crossing time to reflect a rate of 3.5 ft./sec. ST ST Staff time Staff time Bike stencil over side street loop. ST Staff time Source: Fehr & Peers,

49 TABLE 8 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Location Improvement Recommendations Schedule Cost Meadow Drive at Install curb ramps and crosswalks. MT $9,500 El Camino Way Ames Avenue at Install curb ramps. MT $5,000 Rorke Way Install curb extensions. MT TBD Waverly Street at Evaluate sight distance and trim vegetation. ST Staff time El Dorado Avenue Install curb extensions. MT TBD Waverly Street at Install curb ramps. MT $10,000 Loma Verde Avenue Install curb extensions, subject to maintaining current bicycle lanes. MT TBD Bryant Street at Evaluate sight distance and trim vegetation. ST Staff time Loma Verde Avenue Install curb extensions. MT TBD Add crosswalk. MT <$1,000 Maybell Avenue at Install curb ramps. MT $5,000 Coulombe Drive Connect sidewalk facilities. MT TBD Enhance crosswalk. MT <$1,000 Extend curb. MT TBD Louis Road at Install red curb within 50 feet of intersection. ST Staff time Amarillo Avenue Install curb ramps. MT $10,000 Install crosswalk. MT <$1,000 Greer Road at Evaluate sight distance and trim vegetation. ST Staff time Amarillo Avenue Install crosswalks on all approaches. MT <3.000 Georgia Avenue at Trim vegetation. ST Staff time Amaranta Avenue Source: Fehr & Peers,

50 Corridor TABLE 9 CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS Without Improvements Bicycles With Improvements Without Improvements Pedestrians With Improvements Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance Arastradero Road/Charleston Road 69 Tolerable 81 Good 67 Tolerable 79 Good Meadow Drive 79 Good 84 Good 71 Good 80 Good El Camino Way 47 Tolerable 85 Good 71 Good 89 Good Matadero Avenue 42 Tolerable 59 Tolerable 32 Undesirable 62 Tolerable Los Robles Avenue 69 Tolerable 70 Good 50 Tolerable 52 Tolerable Louis Road 89 Good 91 Very Good 80 Good 83 Good Ames Avenue 66 Tolerable 69 Tolerable 63 Tolerable 71 Good Rorke Way 63 Tolerable 70 Good 63 Tolerable 71 Good Barron Avenue 40 Undesirable 56 Tolerable 29 Undesirable 57 Tolerable Maybell Avenue 35 Undesirable 76 Good 38 Undesirable 61 Tolerable Amaranta Avenue 51 Tolerable 54 Tolerable 41 Tolerable 44 Tolerable Waverly Street 74 Good 76 Good 79 Good 81 Good Performance Classifications 90 to 100 Very Good 70 to 89 Good 41 to 69 Tolerable 0 to 40 Undesirable 1 Scores are normalized to 100. Source: Fehr & Peers, July

51 Location TABLE 10 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS Without Improvements Bicycles With Improvements Without Improvements Pedestrians With Improvements Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance El Camino Real at Matadero Avenue 57 Tolerable 73 Good 70 Good 87 Good El Camino Real at Maybell Avenue 52 Tolerable 82 Good 67 Tolerable 84 Good El Camino Real at Charleston Road 49 Tolerable 88 Good 65 Tolerable 88 Good Arastradero Road at Terman Access 79 Good 100 Very Good 88 Good 98 Very Good Arastradero Road at Coulombe Road 45 Tolerable 84 Good 49 Tolerable 76 Good Alma Street at Meadow Drive 45 Tolerable 88 Good 65 Tolerable 86 Good Meadow Drive at Waverly Street 79 Good 100 Very Good 83 Good 97 Very Good Meadow Drive at Middlefield Road 70 Good 96 Very Good 80 Good 94 Very Good Carlson Drive Charleston Road 75 Good 96 Very Good 79 Good 92 Very Good Oregon Expressway at Louis Road 27 Undesirable 40 Undesirable 37 Undesirable 46 Tolerable Oregon Expressway at Greer Road 27 Undesirable 40 Undesirable 37 Undesirable 46 Tolerable Arastradero Road at Gunn High School 64 Tolerable 76 Good 67 Tolerable 74 Good Charleston Road at Alma Street 63 Tolerable 75 Good 71 Good 77 Good Performance Classifications 90 to 100 Very Good 70 to 89 Good 41 to 69 Tolerable 0 to 40 Undesirable 1 Scores are normalized to 100. Source: Fehr & Peers, July

52 Location TABLE 11 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE BICYLES AND PEDESTRIANS Without Improvements Bicycles With Improvements Without Improvements Pedestrians With Improvements Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance Score 1 Performance East Meadow at El Camino Place 75 Good 83 Good 32 Undesirable 75 Good Ames Avenue at Rorke Way 83 Good 100 Very Good 40 Undesirable 68 Tolerable Waverly Street at El Dorado Avenue 83 Good 100 Very Good 68 Tolerable 74 Good Waverly Street at Loma Verde Avenue 79 Good 100 Very Good 74 Good 79 Good Bryant at Loma Verde Avenue 79 Good 100 Very Good 68 Tolerable 79 Good Coulombe Drive at Maybell Avenue 75 Good 92 Very Good 63 Tolerable 86 Good Louis Road at Amarillo Avenue 58 Tolerable 83 Good 49 Tolerable 91 Very Good Greer Road at Amarillo Avenue 83 Good 92 Very Good 65 Tolerable 75 Good Georgia Avenue at Amaranta Avenue 83 Good 92 Very Good 51 Tolerable 54 Tolerable Performance Classifications 90 to 100 Very Good 70 to 89 Good 41 to 69 Tolerable 0 to 40 Undesirable 1 Scores are normalized to 100. Source: Fehr & Peers, July

53 Exhibits (Photographs) 48

54 Exhibit 1: Eastbound Arastradero at Gunn Exhibit 2: Maybell eastbound 49

55 Exhibit 3: Amaranta northbound, before Georgia and Maybell Exhibit 4: Los Robles looking westbound toward Amaranta 50

56 Exhibit 5: Los Robles looking eastbound (away from Amaranta) Exhibit 6: Barron looking westbound at LaDonna 51

57 Exhibit 7: Matadero westbound at Josina Exhibit 8: Matadero eastbound at Josina 52

58 Exhibit 9: El Camino Way at Meadow (northbound) Exhibit 10: El Camino Way south of Meadow (southbound) 53

59 Exhibit 11: Waverly / Meadow, northwest corner Exhibit 12 Waverly / Meadow, northeast corner 54

60 Exhibit 13: Waverly looking northbound, north of Meadow (speed humps in distance) Exhibit 14: Waverly / Loma Verde from southeast corner 55

61 Exhibit 15: Waverly / Loma Verde from southeast corner Exhibit 16: Waverly / Loma Verde from northeast corner 56

62 Exhibit 17: Charleston / ECR: pork chop, southeast corner (southwest has one too) Exhibit 18: Terman / Arastradero, from southeast corner 57

63 Exhibit 19: Terman / Arastradero, from southeast corner Exhibit 20: Alma looking southbound toward Meadow ( frontage road on east side of Alma) 58