Peninsula Transportation Alternatives

On Thursday, May 16, the Technical Advisory Committee for the San Mateo County City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) said they were not ready to consider taking El Camino, currently State Route 82, back from Caltrans.

A proposal to study what it would take for Caltrans to relinquish control over El Camino was triggered by the Grand Boulevard Initiative, as one possible option to address the challenge of redesigning a state highway to become an “urban arterial” that safely serves pedestrians, cyclists, and transit, in addition to drivers.

The Grand Boulevard Initiative is a multi-jurisdiction initiative with a large-scale vision to transform El Camino from a vehicle-centric thoroughfare with low-density, auto-centric businesses to a more populated boulevard, with more residential and mixed use developments.

Caltrans needs to modify its rules in order for the street to safely serve purposes in addition to moving cars. Currently, the Grand Boulevard Initiative has a grant to work with Caltrans to develop alternative “Complete Street” designs that work better for populated downtowns and residential areas, using four cities: Daly City, South San Francisco, San Bruno, and San Carlos as pilot cases.

The grant project team is working on a number of proposed design changes to features such as lane width (narrower), curb radius (tighter), and medians (more trees and shrubs closer to the intersection). .   These changes allow more room for pedestrians and cyclists, and slow traffic down, improving safety.   El Camino had over 3000 collisions between 2007 and 2010, including 10 fatalities, with many intersections showing above average collision rates (see the Grand Boulevard Initiative Existing Conditions Report, pages 67-69).

Proposed multi-modal design exceptions for a 4-lane El Camino segment

Rather than going through the painstaking process of working with Caltrans, and implementing exceptions on a case by case basis, another option would be to have the local cities take back the street.   The City of San Jose recently took this approach with The Alameda, a continuation of El Camino which has pedestrian-oriented retail supporting the the Shasta/Hanchett neighborhoods.   The Shasta/Hanchett community has been leading a “complete streets” transformation of the Alameda, and found that local control made this easier.

But San Mateo County’s engineers were not ready to take this step.

Some engineers at the TAC meeting expressed fundamental doubt about the goals to transform EL Camino “I am not sure all jurisdictions agree with the Grand Boulevard Vision” – said Afshin Oskoui from the City of Belmont.

Larry Patterson, the experienced public works director in San Mateo also expressed skepticism about transforming El Camino.  “Are we committed to this vision? Complete Streets will reduce vehicle capacity.”

The impact of complete streets on capacity is counter-intuitive to engineers trained to widen roads and increase speeds.  Some studies show that reducing vehicle speeds can increase capacity, and complete streets can ease congestion by reducing short-distance vehicle trips.

Some engineers strongly supported the current efforts to make El Camino safer, and see the ability to get state funding with Caltrans as an advantage.   “We have real public health, safety, liability, and ADA (disability access) issues. We can use state money as a tool to get these issues fixed” said Robert Ovadia of Daly City Engineering.

Others were concerned about problems with coordination. Syed Murtuza, Burlingame Engineering, said “Relinquishment is not the answer – fragmentation would create even more problems.

Some suggested a different approach for working with Caltrans. The Grand Boulevard Complete Streets grant project team is considering refinements for the Highway Design Manual that would include alternative options for populated areas. The standard designs used by Caltrans for state highways are focused on moving large volumes of vehicles, and do not consider the roles that roads play in populated areas.

If the changes go in the manual, maybe there is another way to handle this than relinquishment, said Gerry Beaudin, a planner from South San Francisco.

The Technical Advisory Committee’s response was crafted by Larry Patterson, of the City of San Mateo.  The Transportation Authority should not yet consider relinquishment until after the city has an adopted plan about the goals for changes on the corridor.  The group also agreed to receive a presentation on the Complete Streets pilot program to learn more about what changes are actually being envisioned and planned.

The discussion and debate at the C/CAG Technical Advisory Committee shows that the proposals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative are not yet fully known by the city staff that would be responsible for local implementation, and the goals are not yet fully shared.  Tatum Mothershead, Daly City Planning, speculated that a source of skepticism was a divide between planners and engineers.  The GBI was developed and fleshed out with planners; engineers may not have all the information, and do not yet have consensus in support of the initiative’s goals.

Belmont is working on a plan for the Ralston Corridor, an east-west arterial which splits downtown Belmont Village, connects people to the Caltrain station and El Camino bus corridor, and connects drivers from Highway 280 to Highway 101. The city is conducting a study to develop transportation alternatives to improve use by pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and vehicles, now and in the future.

Last week, there was a public meeting to take public input for the study.  Belmont resident Gladwyn D’Souza reports that there were about 20 people in attendance, with about 15 Belmont residents, 5 residents from San Carlos and Redwood Shores, and public officials including staff, council members, and planning commissioners.

At the meeting, two leading institutions in Belmont asked for integrated programs to help get more cars off the road.  James Saunders from Notre Dame De Namur University, a private coed Catholic university with about 2000 students, said that the University already offers programs including providing students with a free Clipper card with a starter amount of $20, shuttles, bike parking, and zipcar.  Oracle, the major technology company whose with headquarters in Redwood Shores, offers a robust commute program. Their representative also asked for support from Belmont for better support of alternatives to driving.

Residents of Belmont mentioned concerns for the safety of children crossing Ralston. Fox Elementary and Ralston Middle School are among the schools near the busy road.  Residents highlighted particularly dangerous spots and high speeds.  Alta is a consultant on the project; they have done a Safe Routes to School Study in Belmont, and are working on a Safe Routes to School study for Palo Alto.

In addition there were several members of the school community in Redwood Shores and San Carlos, who were most interested in vehicle improvements to help get kids to school in Belmont.

The City has different sets of goals for Ralston, including the a Village District plan with goals “to provide Belmont with a sustainable development strategy for a vibrant downtown while ensuring that the village maintain and strengthen its unique character, historic roots, and human scale.”   Other goals include a Complete Streets policy to make streets safe for all users, and the Grand Boulevard Initiative with goals to make El Camino a more effectively multi-modal boulevard with development taking advantage of the transit corridor.

At the same time, Ralston carries large amounts of vehicle traffic – 38,000 average daily trips (ADT) between 6th and the East side, 24,000 ADT between Alameda and 6th, and 25,000 trips between Alameda and 92.

At the meeting, W-Trans, the consultant working on the transportation study, said their goal was to optimize the movement of people.  This perspective would seem to prioritize the high-speed flow of vehicles.  The W-Trans representative said that the study would weigh the pros and cons of changes based on the volume of current uses, which would favor the street’s role in moving people in vehicles through town, above its under-developed role in allowing local residents to get across town and to the train station without driving.

On a steep hillside, Ralston faces distinctive challenges, since winter rains erode the hillsides and wash away the road.  This puts a burden on the city’s maintenance and operations budget, which is falling far behind in the maintenance of Belmont’s city streets.  The maintenance costs could be reduced with watershed planning to improve hillside permeability and stability, reducing erosion, according to Gladwyn D’Souza.  These topics have not yet been included in the study scope.

With the help of its consultants, the City will seek grants to address issues identified in the study. But without a clearer sense of priorities, will the funding address the right mix of goals?

If you are interested in participating in the process, and improving the likelihood that Ralston will get better at helping people get around the village and to transit without driving, and reducing traffic, not just helping it speed through town – share your thoughts and sign up for updates here:

Reporting by Gladwyn D’Souza

Ralston Corridor

Very small audience

There were a number of good points- NDNU was there asking for integrated

alternatives that got cars of the road- they mentioned programs they have

started on free $20/- clipper cards, shuttles, bike parking, and zipcar.

Oracle sent a representative who also asked for integrated alternatives.

Number of issues were mentioned such as the problem of having children cross

Ralston, timing of signals especially for elderly (Safe Routes for Senior!),

dangerous points for peds and bikes, mid block crossings, pollution, danger,

stacking lanes, speeds, etc. Alta is a consultant on the project and they

have done a Safe Routes to School Study in Belmont and are in process of

doing a city wide one in Palo Alto. Jennifer said she will try and fold the

Belmont SRTS data in.

There was a split out session where we got to comment on the corridor in

three sections Sixth and east with 38,000 ADT (average daily trips), sixth

to Alameda with 24,000 ADT, and Alameda to 92 with 25,000. They were going

to measure the modal performance.

And they mentioned most of the big items: Council priority, multi modal,

GBI, San Mateo smart corridor, village district, Belmont General Plan.

Complete streets, context sensitive.

Bad points

They never mentioned the One Bay Area Plan. They said that they would look

at alternatives for a regional corridor but weigh the pros and cons based on

uses; which disadvantages the lesser performing modes. Their goal was to

optimize the movement of people- a strange one since it presupposes speed

and isn’t that what any planning process would do? Meanwhile the Strategic

Plan which covers the 38k ADT advocates a different goal: To provide Belmont

with a sustainable development strategy for a vibrant downtown while

ensuring that the village maintain and strengthen its unique character,

historic roots, and human scale.

W-Trans/Alta planning said they would find the grants to make the projects

happen despite the poorly defined objectives. It seemed more like a fishing

expedition for what the audience would provide cover for. For example Alan

Sarver, of School Force, talked about widening the corridor to function like

an arterial with signals to speed it up- he didn’t care for any traffic

calming or how locals used the corridor. The project drawings were very road

oriented despite the obvious need to start with a landscape architect for

both the watershed impacts and how the view shed and visual logistics would

function within a  human scale design informing the geometries between the

landuses. The implication of securing funding through grants defers the

objectives; i.e. the available fundable program should address the elemental

parameters from design to M/O of the grant criteria rather than the original

objectives which would be held off for alternate grant funding.

A new development in San Mateo with 111 apartments, located at 2090 S. Delaware between the Hayward Park and Hillsdale Caltrain stations, which broke ground last week, will be required to generate 40% fewer trips than a typical suburban development over time.

The trip reduction requirements in the development agreement will increase over time, as the area between the Caltrain stations fills in with seven new developments, with housing, offices, and retail, including the massive new development on the former Bay Meadows site. As there are more destinations within easy walking and biking distance with good transit access, and as the bike and pedestrian environment improves, the city will ratchet up its expectations.

Nelson\Nygaard 2012 for the City of San Mateo

The new development will participate in the brand new San Mateo Rail Corridor Transportation Management Association that will serve the area between the Hillsdale and Hayward Park stations.

The nonprofit TMA will provide services including shuttles to Caltrain, discount transit passes, carpool programs, and other education and incentives to get around without driving. New developments in the area – housing, office, and retail – are required to participate in the TMA. Other existing businesses and developments are welcome to “buy in” to the programs, and founding manager Wendi Silvani believes that it will attract existing businesses also.

Wendi Silvani pioneered the “Emery-Go-Round” shuttle in Emeryville, which started serving a single office complex with two buses, and grew to serve over 1.4 million trips per year to BART and local shopping. She also runs the Mission Bay Transportation Management Association in San Francisco, whose participants include offices and retail developments.  A different spinoff of the Emery-Go-Round program is creating the TMA that is serving Mountain View’s change areas.

The first development to open in the San Mateo Rail Corridor area is a MidPen Housing development with about 60 apartments across from the Hillsdale station. That development provides all residents with free SamTrans passes, which most people are using; adults go to jobs and school, and kids use it to get to school and after-school programs.

There will be an annual report to San Mateo City Council with quantitative results on the TMA performance in several months.  The annual reports will cover the performance of all the projects in the TMA, according to Senior Engineer Gary Heap. This year the report will include the first development participating in the TMA; next year the report will include multiple developments which are under construction and expected to open by then.  The TMA was authorized in the City of San Mateo’s Rail Corridor Plan approved in 2005, but is just getting started now, as transit-oriented developments created under the Plan start to open for business.

The San Mateo TMA is set up by as a standalone nonprofit by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (commute.org) which operates shuttles and other commute services for San Mateo County.  The nonprofit structure enables the TMA to take funding from its members, and to craft enriched services beyond the basic offerings provided by Commute.org.

Every development participating in the San Mateo TMA has slightly different requirements, including transit passes or subsidy, indoor bike storage and onsite transportation information. Other features of some projects include shuttle, managed parking, guaranteed ride home, carpool services, and carshare.

As more TMA partners join, sharing costs and adding customers, Silvani expects that service will improve over time; the organization will be able to provide more frequent shuttle service, more hours of service, and other advantages like a larger population for carpool ride matching. The partners will make the decisions about the level of activities. The goal is to provide good, viable choices that become prefered alternatives to get to and from the area.

The secret to success, says Silvani is working closely with customers in each community. “Every community is unique. What do the people want, who live work and shop in the area, and what will they be willing to pay for.” For example, Silvani surveyed Mission Bay employees about which BART station they preferred; based on the results of the survey, the Shuttle services Powell.

Silvani is proud of the personal touch her organizations provide. Every once in a while someone leaves something on a shuttle, and the drivers make sure to get lost objects returned. New residents and imployees get a personal tour of the shuttle bus stops and a personal review of transportation options. “It’s about doing the little things, paying attention to making people feel welcome. If you start people off doing teh right thing you don’t need to change their behavior after the fact.

The overall goal of the Rail Corridor Plan overall is to achieve about 25% fewer peak hour vehicle tips than a typical suburban area using the Institute for Traffic Engineering trip generation guidelines.  Developments that are close to transit, like 2090 South Delaware, which is .4 miles from Caltrain and the El Camino bus corridor, can have higher goals.   The City expects the trip reductions to be phased in over time, as the area gets more dense, walkable and bikeable.

A back of the napkin analysis, assuming about 90% driving mode share in a typical car-centric suburban location suggests that this development is expected to achieve close to 50% nondrivealone mode share, and the City of San Mateo Rail Corridor as a whole to achieve about 32%.   Since the City will be monitoring progress on an annual basis, there will soon be data showing how investments in transportation demand management in transit-rich locations will pay off in the use of sustainable transportation.

So far over 400 people have signed a petition to Belmont City Council to modernize Ralston Avenue to make it safer for pedestrians, cyclists, children, and the elderly.

Ralston Avenue, which connects 101 and 280, is designed to transport vehicles quickly, and average speeds reach 45 miles per hour in sections, according to the petition. Ralston also crosses downtown Belmont, and is used by residents walking and biking.

The petition reports the hazards in the street design for walking and biking. “Crosswalks are poorly lit. Crosswalks are infrequent in areas where pedestrians want them (crossing between Walgreens and Starbucks; the City has removed crosswalks in this area). Bike lanes disappear mid-route. At certain points, bikes lanes are pushed onto sidewalks shared with pedestrians.” The results have included serious injuries and deaths for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.

Proposed safety improvement include lowering speed limits, continuous bike lanes, and additional crosswalks, as well as re-establishing a pedestrian/bicycle advisory committee.

The City of Belmont is conducting a study for improvements to the Ralston corridor. City Council appropriated $150,000 in February to pay for the study, after the San Mateo County Transportation Authority rejected a grant proposal for a Ralston corridor study in September.
Safety advocates are concerned that the City will prioritize vehicles and pay insufficient attention to the safety hazards for people walking and bicycling.

According to city staff, a public meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 4, a week later than the date in the earlier published schedule. People concerned about safety on Ralston should sign the petition and attend the meeting if possible.

In a tight 4:3 vote on Tuesday, Sunnyvale City Council moved the Lawrence Station area plan forward.   The plan, as developed by a Citizens’ Advisory Group, calls for a compact, mixed-use development around Sunnyvale’s second Caltrain station at Lawrence Expressway.  The plan includes a flexible mix of housing, retail, commercial, and appropriate industrial throughout the Station Area, improved circulation for all modes of transportation, and open space at five locations.

The most controversial topic was whether the area should be zoned for mixed use, or whether some land would be kept for exclusive commercial and industrial uses.  Councilmember Moylan made a strong argument in favor of transit oriented development, including mixed use which will help reduce demand for driving and help meet climate change mandates.   Councilmember Whittum floated an amendment, which was not accepted, to study the plan without any housing north of the tracks, arguing that people could live in cities farther south where land is cheaper and commute to Sunnyvale.

There was broad support for improving connectivity, bike and pedestrian access in the station area.  Several Council members expressed concern that the Lawrence Station, which currently has  low ridership, was on the chopping block during a Caltrain financial crisis, could be closed.  This blogger, with a Friends of Caltrain affiliation, gave public comment that with its electrification plan expected to be in place by 2019, Caltrain is likely to increase service at smaller stations such as Lawrence – better station access and more compact development near the station would improve the likelihood that service stays and increases.

Over a dozen comments in support of the plan were offered by members of the public, with only one comment in opposition. Several local businesses wanted to make sure that a planned road did not encroach on their property. Letters to Council ran very heavily in support, including strong letters of support from the Sierra Club and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Turnout and comments were fostered by an alliance of local environmental groups, who favor transit-oriented development to reduce carbon emissions, pollution and sprawl, and business groups supporting more housing for local workers and transit use to reduce congestion.

The motion carried 4-3, with Griffith, Spitaleri, Moylan, and Martin-Milius voting in support, Meryering, Whittum and Davis opposing.  The approved policy direction will now go back to the Citizens’ Advisory Committee who will help work out the nuts and bolts of the plan.

The next community meeting will be held in the summer, and the first draft of the plan will be reviewed by the CAC this coming fall, and environmental review of the plan would occur in 2014.

If you live or work in or near the Lawrence Station area and would like to be involved in the next steps of the planning process, contact Barbara Fukumoto of Sunnyvale Cool.