ADLP and Santa Cruz Ave Safety Improvements Conceptual Changes - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
adlp and santa cruz ave
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

ADLP and Santa Cruz Ave Safety Improvements Conceptual Changes - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 21, 2022 41 likes •646 views

ADLP and Santa Cruz Ave Safety Improvements Conceptual Changes Community Meeting January 30, 2020 1 General Introduction Jim Porter, San Mateo County Public Works Director Joseph LoCoco, San Mateo County Public Works Deputy Director

slide-1
SLIDE 1

ADLP and Santa Cruz Ave

Safety Improvements – Conceptual Changes Community Meeting January 30, 2020

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

General Introduction

Jim Porter, San Mateo County Public Works Director Joseph LoCoco, San Mateo County Public Works Deputy Director – Road Services

1

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Meeting Introduction

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Who are the Task Force?

Task Force Members:

Representing Name Alameda de las Pulgas Hillary Stevenson Cyclist with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition John Langbein Pedestrian John Loughlin Safe Routes to Schools Jen Wolosin Santa Cruz from Sandhill Rd to Y Cheryl Phan The Y Molly Glennen Cyclist with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bill Kirsch (substitute for John Langbein) Member at large - University Park Inner Ron Snow Menlo Commons Gwen Leonard Menlo Park resident Troy Hayes Motorists Janet Davis Representing Name CHP Jason Ivey CHP Chris Barshini CHP Anthony Ruiz Department of Public Works Diana Shu Department of Public Works Joe LoCoco Department of Public Works Jim Porter Department of Public Works Harry Yip Department of Public Works Hanieh Houshmandi Menlo Fire District Harold Schapelhorman Menlo Fire District Tom Calvert Menlo Fire District Virginia Chang Kiraly Menlo Fire District Jon Johnston Menlo Park Police Department William Dixon Menlo Park, Department of Public Works Kevin Chen Sheriff's Office Chad Buck Supervisor Horsley's Office Don Horsley Supervisor Horsley's Office Jazzalyn Lamadora Supervisor Horsley's Office Carrie Dallman Deputy County Manager Iliana Rodriguez

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Meeting Agenda:

7:00 PM General introduction Logistics of Meeting Jim Porter/Joe Lococo – County DPW 7:05 PM Task Force Collaboration and Previous Survey Results John Loughlin – Task Force 7:20 PM Presentation of Technical Alternatives Adam Dankberg - Kimley Horn Associates 7:50 PM Breakout Session

  • Hands-on viewing of exhibits
  • Video simulations of alternatives on screen
  • Write down comment cards

Joe Lococo – County DPW 8:10 PM Question and Answer Session Joe Lococo – County DPW Adam Dankberg - Kimley Horn Associates 8:50 PM Closing Next Steps:

  • Survey
  • Anticipated milestones

Joe Lococo – County DPW

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Meeting Logistics

Questions and Comments

▪ Questions and comments will be

addressed in Q&A session

▪ All comments shall be made on

comment card and placed in respective colored box Preferences Survey

▪ Request your feedback through

  • nline survey

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Task Force Collaboration and Previous Survey Results

John Loughlin, taskforce member & resident living on Santa Cruz Ave

1

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Community Involvement Drives The Task Force

 First Community Meeting Aug 2017: Significant Interest & Some Concern

○ Interest: strong desire for improved safety, but many options & constituencies ○ Concern: how to make complex tradeoffs clear & explicit; and, who decides?

 SMC Task Force (Since Fall 2017): Open to, populated, and driven by residents, cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, Safe Routes to School Representatives. Also supported by MP Police, MP Fire, County DPW, & Board of Supervisors.  A powerful community forum for identifying the issues & opportunities, examining the options and arriving at the explicit benefits and tradeoffs…. All driving to this session to report back and gather another round of Community feedback

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Understanding Community Priorities : the Survey

 Extensive survey formulated by full Task Force  Community participation solicited via email, post-cards, social media, mail lists, electronic message boards, newspaper & door-to-door  Survey conducted on-line from Sept 1 to Sept 23, 2018  701 Respondents

don’t use corridor 1%

residents 40% Users/Non-residents 27% commuters (motorists,cyclists) 32%

WHO MAKES UP THE 701 RESPONDENTS?

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Major Findings of the Survey

3

  • The vast majority of all respondents (residents, commuters and non-

resident users) wanted safety improvements along the corridor.

  • Respondents consistently ranked “Safer flow of traffic” as an

improvement most important to them.

  • Within each respondent group, almost all were willing to reduce a travel

lane in exchange for improved safety.

  • However, specific priorities and tradeoffs varied by respondent group.

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

All Respondents Want Safety Improvements

 “Maintain the current speed and flow of traffic even if it means minimal safety improvements.” (Q12a)

Respondents not satisfied with current conditions and desire changes to make all modes of travel safer.

 Respondents ranked “Safer flow of traffic” as the improvement most important to them (Q13).

5

67% 57% 38% 37% 33% 43% 62% 63% SIDEW ALKS PED CROSSINGS BIKE LANE SAFER FLOW OF TRAFFIC

RANKING - % ALL RESPONSES

least important most important

31% 69%

KEEP CURRENT SPEED OF TRAFFIC (Q12A)

agree disagree

slide-12
SLIDE 12

All Respondents Want Safety Improvements Commuters

Respondents not satisfied with current conditions and desire changes to make all modes of travel safer

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Residents expressed strong preferences for pedestrian enhancements, safer traffic flow and improved sidewalks

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Residents consistently willing to reduce a traffic travel lane to achieve safety objectives

9

33% 69% 62% 64% 47% 29% 47% 67% 31% 38% 36% 53% 71% 53% SPEED VS SAFETY PED XING VS TRAVEL LN BIKE SAFETY VS TRAVEL LN SIDEW ALK VS TRAVEL LN SIDEW ALK VS NO BIKE LN BIKE LN VS NO SIDEW ALKS BIKE LN VS LESS TRAVEL LN

% RESIDENTS WHO AGREE WITH CHANGE

agree disagree

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

9

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

The Challenge & Next Steps

 A clear expression of priorities for improved safety across all constituencies, although priorities differed by group  A fixed width of roadway and an inability to accommodate ALL of the desired improvements without removing one or more traffic lanes  The Task Force has spent 18 months distilling the options to FOUR, including “doing nothing”. These options will shortly be presented and explained by DPW and their expert consultants  As a Task Force, we want you to understand and study these options and then provide us with your preferences for next steps and action

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Presentation of Technical Alternatives

Adam Dankberg, Kimley Horn Associates

1

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Technical Presentation Agenda

▪ Alameda de las Pulgas Section Concept

– 1 Road Diet Alternative

▪ Santa Cruz Avenue Section Concepts

– 3 Configuration Alternatives

▪ Y Intersection Concepts

– 3 Configuration Alternatives

▪ Traffic Operations Analysis

– Travel times, Queuing, Signal Phasing

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Corridor Design Alternatives

Y Intersection (ADLP/Santa Cruz Ave/Campo Bello Ln)

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

ADLP- Avy to Santa Cruz – Existing

Between Sharon Road and Prospect Street

20

To Avy Ave Sandhill Road

slide-21
SLIDE 21

ADLP- Avy to Santa Cruz – Existing

21

Between Sharon Road and Prospect Street Looking Towards Avy Avenue

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Between Sharon Road and Prospect Street

22

ADLP- Avy to Santa Cruz – Road Diet

Sandhill Road To Avy Ave

slide-23
SLIDE 23

ADLP- Avy to Santa Cruz – Road Diet

23

Between Sharon Road and Prospect Street Looking Towards Avy Avenue

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Santa Cruz – ADLP to Sand Hill Road – Existing

Between Oak Hollow Way and Palo Alto Way

24 Avy Avenue Sand Hill Road

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Santa Cruz – ADLP to Sand Hill Road – Existing

Between Oak Hollow and Palo Alto Looking towards Alameda de Las Pulgas

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Santa Cruz – ADLP to Sand Hill Road – Alt A

Between Oak Hollow Way and Palo Alto Way

26 Avy Avenue Sand Hill Road

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Santa Cruz – ADLP to Sand Hill Road – Alt A

27

Between Oak Hollow and Palo Alto Looking towards Alameda de Las Pulgas

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Santa Cruz – ADLP to Sand Hill Road – Alt B

Between Oak Hollow Way and Palo Alto Way

28 Avy Avenue Sand Hill Road

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Santa Cruz – ADLP to Sand Hill Road – Alt B

29

Between Oak Hollow and Palo Alto Looking towards Alameda de Las Pulgas

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Santa Cruz – ADLP to Sand Hill Road – Alt C

Between Oak Hollow Way and Palo Alto Way

30 Avy Avenue Sand Hill Road

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Santa Cruz – ADLP to Sand Hill Road – Alt C

31

Between Oak Hollow and Palo Alto Looking towards Alameda de Las Pulgas

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Santa Cruz & ADLP “Y” Intersection – 2018 Conditions

32 Avy Avenue Sand Hill Road

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Santa Cruz & ADLP “Y” Intersection – 2018 Conditions

33

Santa Cruz Looking towards the “Y” from Sand Hill Road

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Santa Cruz & ADLP “Y” Intersection – Alt A

34 Avy Avenue Sand Hill Road

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Santa Cruz & ADLP “Y” Intersection – Alt A

35

Santa Cruz Looking towards the “Y” from Sand Hill Road

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Santa Cruz & ADLP “Y” Intersection – Alt B

36 Avy Avenue Sand Hill Road

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

Santa Cruz & ADLP “Y” Intersection – Alt B

Santa Cruz Looking towards the “Y” from Sand Hill Road

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Santa Cruz & ADLP “Y” Intersection – Alt C

38 Avy Avenue Sand Hill Road

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Santa Cruz & ADLP “Y” Intersection – Alt C

39

Santa Cruz Looking towards the “Y” from Sand Hill Road

slide-40
SLIDE 40

“Y” Intersection – Right Turn Signal to Downtown Menlo Park

40

▪ Current Phase Plan (No Right Turn On Red)

Right Turn towards Downtown Menlo Park Right Turn OK No Right Turn No Right Turn

slide-41
SLIDE 41

“Y” Intersection – Right Turn Signal to Downtown Menlo Park

41

▪ Phasing Plan 1 - No Right Turn on Red with new

crosswalk

Right Turn towards Downtown Menlo Park No Right Turn No Right Turn Right Turn OK

New Crosswalk

slide-42
SLIDE 42

“Y” Intersection – Right Turn Signal to Downtown Menlo Park

42

▪ Phasing Plan 2 - Previous (2018)

Right Turn towards Downtown Menlo Park Right Turn OK Right Turn after Complete Stop if Clear Right Turn OK

slide-43
SLIDE 43

“Y” Intersection – Right Turn Signal to Downtown Menlo Park

43

▪ Phasing Plan 3 - Right Turn on Red OK after

Complete Stop if Clear

Right Turn towards Downtown Menlo Park Right Turn OK Right Turn after Complete Stop if Clear Right Turn after Complete Stop if Clear

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Travel Time Forecast (Existing Volumes)

Forecast Average Travel Time - 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM (Existing Volumes) Travel Time Route No Build (min:sec) Alt A Alt B 1: Santa Cruz Ave NB* 01:30 + 2 seconds + 2 seconds 2: Santa Cruz Ave SB* 02:45

  • 17 seconds

+ 38 seconds 3: Alameda de las Pulgas NB** 02:17 + 24 seconds + 9 seconds 4: Alameda de las Pulgas SB** 02:41 + 17 seconds + 51 seconds

*Santa Cruz Ave travel time is from the intersection of Sand Hill Rd/Santa Cruz Ave to the intersection of Sharon Rd/Santa Cruz Ave **Alameda de las Pulgas travel time is from the intersection of Sand Hill Rd/Santa Cruz Ave to the intersection of Avy Ave/Alameda de las Pulgas 44

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Travel Time Forecast (2030 Projected Volumes)

Forecast Average Travel Time - 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM (2030 Volumes) Travel Time Route No Build (min:sec) Alt A Alt B 1: Santa Cruz Ave NB* 01:30 + 1 second + 3 seconds 2: Santa Cruz Ave SB* 02:50

  • 18 seconds

+ 145 seconds 3: Alameda de las Pulgas NB** 02:31 + 15 seconds

  • 5 seconds

4: Alameda de las Pulgas SB** 02:40 + 19 seconds + 112 seconds

*Santa Cruz Ave travel time is from the intersection of Sand Hill Rd/Santa Cruz Ave to the intersection of Sharon Rd/Santa Cruz Ave **Alameda de las Pulgas travel time is from the intersection of Sand Hill Rd/Santa Cruz Ave to the intersection of Avy Ave/Alameda de las Pulgas Alternative C would operate similar to Alternative A in the northbound direction and Alternative B in the southbound direction 45

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Queuing Forecast (Existing Volumes)

Legend:

Existing Q Alt A Q Alt B Q

PM Average Queues (Existing Volumes) – Sand Hill Rd/Santa Cruz Ave 46

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Queuing Forecast (2030 Volumes)

Legend:

Baseline Q Alt A Q Alt B Q

PM Average Queues (2030 Volumes) – Sand Hill Rd/Santa Cruz Ave 47

Note: Queues extend beyond limits of the model along Alpine Road in Baseline and with Alternatives A and B

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Queuing Forecast (Existing Volumes)

Legend:

Existing Q Alt A Q Alt B Q

PM Average Queues (Existing Volumes) – Y Intersection 48

Note: Existing reflects signal phasing and lane geometry at the Y as of 2018.

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Queuing Forecast (2030 Volumes)

Legend:

Baseline Q Alt A Q Alt B Q

PM Average Queues (2030 Volumes) – Y Intersection 49

Note: Baseline reflects signal phasing and lane geometry at the Y as of 2018.

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Travel Time Forecast No Right Turn on Red at the Y

Forecast Average Travel Time - 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM (2030 Volumes) Travel Time Route Alt A Alt A with No Turn

  • n Red

2030 with Alt B Alt B with No Turn

  • n Red

1: Santa Cruz Ave NB* 01:31 + 14 seconds 01:33 + 11 seconds

*Santa Cruz Ave travel time is from the intersection of Sand Hill Rd/Santa Cruz Ave to the intersection of Sharon Rd/Santa Cruz Ave 50

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Queuing Forecast (Existing Volumes) No Right Turn on Red at the Y

Legend:

Existing Alt A Q Alt A Q with NTOR

ALT A - PM Average Queues for Northbound Right – Y Intersection 51 Legend:

Existing Alt B Q Alt B Q with NTOR

ALT B - PM Average Queues for Northbound Right – Y Intersection

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Queuing Forecast (2030 Volumes) No Right Turn on Red at the Y

Legend:

Baseline Alt A Q Alt A Q with NTOR

ALT A - PM Average Queues for Northbound Right – Y Intersection 52 Legend:

Baseline Alt B Q Alt B Q with NTOR

ALT B - PM Average Queues for Northbound Right – Y Intersection

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Additional Information

▪ Full Conceptual Layouts for all Alternatives ▪ Micro-simulation Model for Alternatives A and B

(Existing Volumes)

53

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Questions and Answers

  • Please fill out Q&A card for any

questions to the Task Force

54

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Breakout Session

Joseph LoCoco – San Mateo County Public Works Deputy Director – Roads Services

1

55

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Question and Answer Session

Joseph LoCoco – San Mateo County Public Works Deputy Director – Roads Services Adam Dankberg – Kimley Horn and Associates

1

56

slide-57
SLIDE 57

Next Steps

Joseph LoCoco – San Mateo County Public Works Deputy Director – Roads Services

1

57

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Community Survey – Alternative Preferences

  • Survey will be posted online at

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SCA_ADLP by end of the day on January 31, 2020

  • Survey will be closed on February 23, 2020

58

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Next Steps

  • Collect community feedback on alternative

preferences………………………………......FEB 23, 2020

  • Reconvene and review with Task Force..……. MAR 2020
  • Prepare Final Report…..…………………..........APR 2020
  • Request Board adoption of plan………………JUNE 2020

59

slide-60
SLIDE 60

60