60DUNHW6WUHHW_6XLWH_6DQ-RVp&$
_
_)D[
ZZZIHKUDQGSHHUVFRP
¶¾Àò¿µÆ¾
'DWH
-XQH
7R
&LW\RI3DOR$OWR3KLOLS.DP KL&KLHI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ2IILFLDO 6\OYLD6WDU/DFN
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQQLQJ0DQDJHU
DQG&KDUOLH&ROHV6HQLRU7UDQ VSRUWDWLRQ3ODQQHU
)URP
)HKU 3HHUV6WHYH'DYLV3(DQG0HJKDQ0LWPDQ$,&3563 ,
6XEMHFW
5HYLHZRI(O&DPLQR5H DO3URSRVHG6WULSLQJLQ3DOR$OWR&DOLIRUQLD 6-
:HKDYHSHUIRUPHGDUHYLHZRIWKHSURSRVHGVWULSLQJSODQVGDWHG 0D\IURP&DOWUDQVIRU WKH(O&DPLQR5HDO
6WDWH5RXWH
&RUULGRULQWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR:HSUHYLRXVO\UHYLHZHGGUDIW &DOWUDQVVWULSLQJSODQVGDWHG-DQXDU\LQDPHPRUDQGXP GDWHG0DUFK7KDW UHYLHZFRQVLGHUHGWKHFRQVLVWHQF\RIWKHSURSRVHGGHVLJQZLWK& DOWUDQV·FRPSOHWHVWUHHWVDQG VDIHW\SROLFLHVDQGQDWLRQDOFRPSOHWHVWUHHWVGHVLJQEHVWSUDFWLFHVDVZHOODVWKH&LW\·VRQJRLQJ %LF\FOH3HGHVWULDQ7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQ
%373
XSGDWHDQGVDIHW\ DFWLRQSODQHIIRUWV,WDOVR
FRQVLGHUHGWKHUROHRIWKH(O&DPLQR5HDO&RUULGRULQWKH&LW\· VODQGXVHSODQVLQSDUWLFXODU SODQQHGKLJKGHQVLW\KRXVLQJDORQJWKHFRUULGRUDQGWKHFRPSDWLELOLW\RIWKHSURSRVHGGHVLJQ ZLWKWKHODQGXVHFRQWH[WDQGPRGHVKLIWJRDOVWRPHHWWKH&LW\·VVXVWDLQDELOLW\DIIRUGDEOH KRXVLQJDQGFOLPDWHJRDOV
2XUUHYLHZRIWKH0D\VWULSLQJSODQVZDVVLPLODUO\URRWHGLQWKH6DIH6\VWHP$SSURDFK ZKLFKUHFRJQL]HVWKHUROHRINLQHWLFHQHUJ\
VSHHGDQGYHKLFOHPDVV
DQGH[SRVXUHDVWKHURRW
FDXVHVRIVHYHUHLQMXULHVDQGIDWDOLWLHVDQGUHTXLUHVDUHGXQG DQWKROLVWLFDQGSURDFWLYHDSSURDFK WRDGGUHVVV\VWHPLFLVVXHVDQGRSSRUWXQLWLHV$VVXFKZHFRPSO HWHGDGHWDLOHGHYDOXDWLRQRIWKH SURSRVHGGHVLJQWUHDWPHQWVWRLGHQWLI\KRZWKH\EHVWVHUYHWKH FRUHSULQFLSOHVRIWKLVDSSURDFK 7KLVLQFOXGHGVSHFLILFDOO\UHYLHZLQJ
/DQHZLGWKVDOLJQPHQWVDQGLQWHUVHFWLRQWUHDWPHQWVWKDWDIIHFWRYHUDOOWUDYHOVSHHGV LQFOXGLQJVSHHGVRIWXUQLQJYHKLFOHV
%LNHZD\VHSDUDWLRQELNHODQHSURYLVLRQELF\FOHWXUQDFFRPPRGD WLRQDQGSHGHVWULDQ HQKDQFHPHQWVWKDWKHOSWRUHGXFHH[SRVXUHDQGSRLQWVRIFRQIOLFWIRUSHRSOHZDONLQJ ELNLQJDQGUROOLQJE\VHSDUDWLQJWKHPIURPPRYLQJYHKLFOHV %XVVWRSWUHDWPHQWVWKDWDGGUHVVLQWHUDFWLRQVEHWZHHQELF\FOLVW VDQGEXVHVDVZHOODV EHWZHHQELF\FOLVWVDQGSHGHVWULDQVWUDQVLWULGHUV
2SHUDWLRQDOHQKDQFHPHQWVVXFKDVWXUQUHVWULFWLRQVDQGWUDIILFVLJQDORSHUDWLRQV DGMXVWPHQWVWKDWVHSDUDWHXVHUVWHPSRUDOO\
&LW\RI3DOR$OWR
-XQH
3DJHRI
$UHGOLQHPDUNXSZLWKUHYLHZFRPPHQWVIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQLVDWWDFKHG7KHVHFRPPHQWVUHSUHVHQW VXJJHVWLRQVEDVHGRQDUHYLHZRIWKHSURSRVHGGHVLJQSODQVDQG H[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVEXWUHTXLUH IXUWKHUHQJLQHHULQJHYDOXDWLRQWRYHULI\IHDVLELOLW\
1RWHWKDWWKH&DOWUDQVGHVLJQUHIOHFWVLPSURYHPHQWVDUHEHLQJGHOLYHUHGDVSDUWRIWKH6WDWH +LJKZD\2SHUDWLRQDQG3URWHFWLRQ3URJUDP
6+233
ZKLFKKDVOLP LWDWLRQVRQWKHW\SHVRI
PRGLILFDWLRQVWKDWFDQEHFRQVWUXFWHG$VVXFKRXUUHYLHZFRPP HQWVQRWHERWKVXJJHVWHG HQKDQFHPHQWVWRWKHSURSRVHG&DOWUDQVGHVLJQDQGDGGLWLRQDOPRG LILFDWLRQVZKLFKFRXOGEH SXUVXHGDVSDUWRIVHSDUDWHSODQQLQJDQGGHVLJQHIIRUWVLQWKHIXWXUH2YHUDOOZHREVHUYHWKH
IROORZLQJ
7KHSURSRVHGGHVLJQKDVEHHQUHILQHGWRLQFOXGHUHGXFHGYHKLFOH ODQHZLGWKVDQGH[SDQG WKHDYDLODELOLW\RI&ODVV,9ELNHZD\V$GGLWLRQDOUHILQHPHQWVD UHVXJJHVWHGWRLQFUHDVH VHSDUDWLRQIRUELF\FOLVWVDQGUHGXFHWXUQLQJVSHHGVIRUYHKLFOH V 7KRXJKPDQ\SRUWLRQVRI(O&DPLQR5HDOZLOOUHFHLYHQRWLFHDEOHHQKDQFHPHQWWRELF\FOH IDFLOLWLHVWKURXJKWKH&DOWUDQV6+233GHVLJQOLPLWDWLRQVRI6+ 233PD\UHVXOWLQ´ZHDN OLQNVµ
KLJKHUOHYHORIWUDIILFVWUHVVVLWXDWLRQV
EHLQJPDLQWDLQHGDWDIHZPDMRU
LQWHUVHFWLRQVZKHUHWKHFURVVVHFWLRQLVOLPLWHG:HKDYHVXJJH VWHGHQKDQFHPHQWVZKLFK SURYLGHDGGLWLRQDOVHSDUDWLRQIRUELF\FOLVWVQHDULQWHUVHFWLRQV LPSURYHSHGHVWULDQDQG WUDQVLWDFFRPPRGDWLRQDQGDGGUHVVFRQIOLFWVEHWZHHQYHKLFOHVD QGYXOQHUDEOHXVHUVDVD QH[WVWHSWREXLOGXSRQWKHSURSRVHG&DOWUDQVGHVLJQ 5HYLVLRQVWRWKHSODQVKDYHUHVXOWHGLQDQWLFLSDWHGLPSURYHPHQW VWRLQWHUDFWLRQVEHWZHHQ ELF\FOLVWVDQGEXVHVDWVRPHORFDWLRQVEXWDGGLWLRQDOHQKDQFHP HQWVDUHVXJJHVWHGWR HVWDEOLVKDGHVLUHGVWDQGDUGIRUPDUNLQJVKDUHGEXVELNHVSDFHV LQFOXGLQJ´%86%,.( 21/<µ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
&LW\RI3DOR$OWR
-XQH
3DJHRI
,QRXUUHYLHZRIWKH&DOWUDQVVWULSLQJSODQVGDWHG-DQXDU\ ZHGHVFULEHGKRZWKHW\SLFDO FDQGLGDWHELF\FOLQJSRSXODWLRQVZHUHOLNHO\WREHDIIHFWHGE\WKHSURSRVHGGHVLJQ:LWKWKH UHILQHG&DOWUDQVSODQVGDWHG0D\LWLVDQWLFLSDWHGWK DWELF\FOLVWVZRXOGEHDIIHFWHGLQWKH IROORZLQJSRVLWLYH
RUQHJDWLYH
ZD\V
7<3(2)
%,&<&/,67
(;,67,1*
&21',7,216
352326('&$/75$16
&21),*85$7,21
327(17,$//2:(5675(66
'(6,*1
67521*$1'
)($5/(66
&XUUHQWO\ULGLQJ
RQWKHVWUHHW
:LOOFRQWLQXHULGLQJRQWKH
VWUHHWDQGEHQHILWIURPQHZ
VHSDUDWHG
&ODVV,9
IDFLOLWLHVLQ
VRPHVWUHWFKHV
:LOOFRQWLQXHULGLQJRQWKHVWUHHW
DQGEHQHILWIURPQHZVHSDUDWHG
IDFLOLWLHVDVZHOODVHDV\DFFHVVWR
WXUQVRIIDQGRQ(O&DPLQR5HDO
(17+86('
$1'
&21),'(17
25%,&<&/(
'(3(1'(17
&XUUHQWO\ULGLQJ
RQWKHVLGHZDON
DWWLPHVFRQWUD
IORZ
:LOOOLNHO\XVHHQKDQFHGRQ
VWUHHWELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHVLQPDQ\
DUHDVEXWDUHOLNHO\WRGLYHUWWR
WKHVLGHZDONWRDYRLGZHDNOLQNV
DWPDMRULQWHUVHFWLRQVRUEXV\
EXVVWRSV
FRQWUDIORZULGLQJ
PD\RFFXULQWKHELNHZD\ZKHUH
KLJKTXDOLW\FURVVLQJVRI(O
&DPLQR5HDODUHLQIUHTXHQW
DQGRUVLGHVWUHHWFURVVLQJV
RIDFFHVVWR(O&DPLQR5HDODUH
QRWHQKDQFHGIRUELF\FOLVWV
:LOOOLNHO\VKLIWWRRQVWUHHWULGLQJ
UHPRYLQJWKHFKDOOHQJHVDVVRFLDWHG
ZLWKFRQWUDIORZVLGHZDONRUELNHZD\
ULGLQJ
DGGLWLRQDOUHILQHPHQWVWRWKH
&DOWUDQVGHVLJQWRDGGVHSDUDWLRQ
DQGUHGXFHWXUQLQJVSHHGVDVZHOODV
WUHDWPHQWVWRHQKDQFHFURVVLQJVDQG
FURVVLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVFRXOGVKLIWWKH
GHVLJQSODQVFORVHUWRWKLVFDWHJRU\
IRUFRQILGHQWELF\FOLVWV
,17(5(67('
%87
&21&(51('
1RWFXUUHQWO\
ULGLQJRQ(O
&DPLQR5HDO
6RPHPD\XVH(O&DPLQR
5HDOSDUWLFXODUO\RQVHJPHQWV
SURYLGLQJDKLJKSURSRUWLRQRI
VHSDUDWHGELNHZD\V
VRPHDUH
OLNHO\WRFRQWLQXHWRDYRLG(O
&DPLQR5HDORUFKRRVHWRGULYH
LQVWHDGEHFDXVHRIZHDNHVWOLQNV
0D\EHRSHQWRULGLQJRQ(O
&DPLQR5HDOLQFOXGLQJDZLGHUUDQJH
RIDJHVDQGDELOLWLHV
LH\HDU
ROGV
&LW\RI3DOR$OWR
-XQH
3DJHRI
:HVXJJHVWWKHIROORZLQJWRVXSSRUWKLJKHUFRPIRUWDFFHVVDQG PRGHVKLIWSRWHQWLDOIRUZDONLQJ DQGELF\FOLQJDORQJDQGDFURVV(O&DPLQR5HDO
PRYLQJWRWKHUL JKWPRVWFROXPQLQWKHWDEOH
DERYH
7KHVHVXJJHVWLRQVVSHFLILFDOO\IRFXVRQRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRSURDFWLYHO\DQGUHGXQGDQWO\ UHGXFHH[SRVXUHIRUYXOQHUDEOHURDGXVHUVWRKLJKVSHHGWUDIILF DQGRUKHDY\YHKLFOHVLQOLQHZLWK WKH6DIH6\VWHP$SSURDFK
$VSDUWRIWKH&DOWUDQV6+233SURMHFWSRWHQWLDOO\LQFOXGLQJ&L W\FRRUGLQDWLRQLQSDUDOOHO
o 3URYLGHDGGLWLRQDOVHJPHQWVRI&ODVV,9ELNHZD\ZLWKSK\VLFDOVHSDUDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJHOLPLQDWLRQRIFRQIOLFWPDUNLQJVGRZQVWUHDPIURPPRVW LQWHUVHFWLRQV o $GGVHSDUDWLRQLQORFDWLRQVWKDWZLOOUHGXFHWKHWRWDOOHQJWKRIFRQIOLFWPDUNLQJ ]RQHVWKDWVHUYHDVGHIDFWRULJKWWXUQODQHVDSSURDFKLQJLQWHUVHFWLRQV o &RQYHUWVRPHVHFWLRQVRI&ODVV,,ELNHODQHWR&ODVV,9ELNHZD\ E\XWLOL]LQJ UHGXFHGELNHZD\DQGRUEXIIHUZLGWKV
RQDURDGZD\VXFKDV(O& DPLQR5HDOD
VRPHZKDWQDUURZHUVHSDUDWHGELNHZD\LVOLNHO\WRSURYLGHDPRUH FRPIRUWDEOH ULGLQJH[SHULHQFHWKDQDZLGHUVWDQGDUGELNHODQHIRUPDQ\ELF\ FOLVWV
o 3URYLGHTXLFNEXLOGFXUEH[WHQVLRQVDWPDQ\LQWHUVHFWLRQVWRDG GUHVVWXUQLQJ VSHHGVRQDQGRII(O&DPLQR5HDOZKLOHUHGXFLQJFURVVLQJGLVWDQ FHV o 3URYLGH´SDLQWDQGSODVWLFµSURWHFWHGLQWHUVHFWLRQVGHGLFDWHGLQWHUVHFWLRQVDQG WZRVWDJHWXUQRSSRUWXQLWLHVZKHUHJHRPHWU\DOORZVLQFOXGLQJHOLPLQDWLRQRI ULJKWWXUQFKDQQHOL]DWLRQZKHUHIHDVLEOH
o 3URYLGHDGGLWLRQDOWHPSRUDOVHSDUDWLRQRIPRGHVDWNH\LQWHUVHF WLRQVXVLQJVLJQDO WLPLQJVWUDWHJLHVDQGRUULJKWWXUQRQUHGUHVWULFWLRQVWRUHGX FHELF\FOLVWDQG SHGHVWULDQH[SRVXUH
o :KHUH&ODVV,,ELNHODQHVDUHSURYLGHGFRQWLQXHWKHELNHODQH ZLWKVROLGVWULSLQJ DFURVVPLQRUGULYHZD\VUDWKHUWKDQSURYLGLQJFRQIOLFWPDUNLQJV o 3URYLGHDGGLWLRQDOVWULSLQJWRQDUURZODQHZLGWKVDQGFODULI\GHVLUHGWUDYHOSDWKV IRUGULYHUV
o 3URYLGHZD\ILQGLQJWRGLUHFWSHRSOHZDONLQJELNLQJRUUROOLQJ WRGHVLUDEOHWUDYHO URXWHVVXFKDVWKH6WDQIRUG3HULPHWHU7UDLOZKHUHIDFLOLWLHVRQ (O&DPLQR5HDODUH QRWVXLWHGWRDFFRPPRGDWLQJDOOPRGHV
,QWKHVKRUWWHUPDVHQKDQFHPHQWVWRWKH&DOWUDQV6+233SURMHFWSUHVXPHGWREH FRPSOHWHGVHSDUDWHO\
o $GGUHVVEXVELF\FOHFRQIOLFWVE\SLORWLQJVWRSLQODQHEXVVWRS VDQGEXVERDUGLQJ LVODQGVLQFOXGLQJVKDUHGELNHODQHERDUGLQJLVODQGVLQFROODERUDWLRQZLWKWUDQVLW SURYLGHUV
o (YDOXDWHOHIWWXUQUHVWULFWLRQVWROLPLWUHPRYHVLWXDWLRQVZLWKSHUPLVVLYHRU XQVLJQDOL]HGOHIWWXUQVWRRUIURPVLGHVWUHHWVZKLFKUHTXLUH GULYHUVWRHYDOXDWH JDSVLQPXOWLSOHODQHVRIWUDIILFZKLOHPRQLWRULQJWKHORFDWLRQ RIELF\FOLVWVDQG SHGHVWULDQV
o $IWHUHYDOXDWLQJDGGLWLRQDOUHILQHPHQWVWRWKH&DOWUDQV6+233S URMHFWEDVHG XSRQWKHVXJJHVWLRQVDERYHSXUVXHDFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGGHVLJQ &LW\RI3DOR$OWR
-XQH
3DJHRI
SURFHVVWRGHWHUPLQHDYLVLRQIRU(O&DPLQR5HDOLQFROODERUDWL RQZLWK VWDNHKROGHUVDQGWKHFRPPXQLW\3RWHQWLDOIRUPRUHFRPSUHKHQVLY HLQWHUVHFWLRQ DQGWUDIILFVLJQDOPRGLILFDWLRQVYHKLFOHODQHUHGXFWLRQVRUR WKHUUHDOORFDWLRQRI VSDFHLQWKHSXEOLFUHDOPVKRXOGEHVWXGLHGSRWHQWLDOO\DOORZLQJ
0RUHVXEVWDQWLDOVHSDUDWLRQIRUELF\FOLVWV
3URWHFWHGFRUQHUVWKDWLQFUHDVHWKHRYHUDOOVHSDUDWLRQRIWKHE LNHZD\ (QKDQFHGEXVVWRSVZLWKVHSDUDWLRQEHWZHHQELF\FOLVWVSHGHVWUL DQVDQG WUDQVLWYHKLFOHV
5HVWRUDWLRQRISDUNLQJORDGLQJDQGRWKHUH[LVWLQJFXUEVLGHXV HVDQG $QRYHUDOO(O&DPLQR5HDOFRUULGRUFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKHPRGHVKLIWJRDOV FRQWH[WDQGFRPPXQLW\QHHGVRIWKHFRUULGRU
,QWKHPHGLXPWHUP
o &RQYHUWDOOTXLFNEXLOGHQKDQFHPHQWVWRSHUPDQHQWWUHDWPHQWVLQFOXGLQJ UHYLHZLQJDOOVLJQDOL]HGLQWHUVHFWLRQJHRPHWU\DQGFRQWUROVHVSHFLDOO\WKRVHZLWK VNHZHGKLJKVSHHGDQJOHVDQGRUPLVVLQJFURVVZDONOHJV o 'HWHUPLQHDGGLWLRQDOPLGEORFNFURVVLQJVWKDWPD\EHQHHGHGWRV HUYHGHVLUH OLQHVIRUSHGHVWULDQVDQGELF\FOLVWVWUDYHOLQJWRNH\GHVWLQDWL RQVLQWKHFRUULGRU LQFOXGLQJEXVVWRSV
o $VGHYHORSPHQWRFFXUVDORQJ(O&DPLQR5HDOSULRULWL]HDFFHVVD QGFXUEVLGH PDQDJHPHQWVWUDWHJLHVWKDWSURPRWHJUHDWHUELF\FOHSHGHVWULDQD FWLYLW\DQG UHGXFHWKHQXPEHURIGULYHZD\VZKLFKDFFHVV(O&DPLQR5HDOGLUHFWO\
DRAFT 5/20/24
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly into
travel lanes (see example below).
This break appears to be solely for access to a fire
hydrant, there are no driveways or other curb
access needs. Continue buffer separation through
this area as marked bike lane (not conflict zone)
and provide break in channelizers/raised separation
devices to allow emergency vehicle access.
There is a small curb
extension here now
for the recently
installed PHB.
Eliminate this part of 39A
section downstream from
Monroe intersection to
increase defined bike area
- there should be sufficient
space for buffered or
separated bike lane.
Consider eliminating this part
of 39A section to avoid
effectively having 250' of
mixing zone that drivers may
use as a right-turn lane
(reduction to 100' shown).
100 ft
Continue buffer separation through this
area as marked bike lane (not conflict
zone) and provide break in
channelizers/raised separation devices
to allow emergency vehicle access to
fire hydrant in advance of driveway.
Not reviewed.
May be feasible to
provide two-stage
turn queue box.
May be feasible to
provide two-stage
turn queue box.
Universal comments:
• Verify drainage and other infrastructure in bikeway has bicycle-friendly lids • Verify placement of bike detection symbols is centered in bikeway/bike lane • Consider including limit lines across bike lanes where appropriate • Where feasible, consider quick-build curb extensions to narrow side streets, helping to reduce vehicle turning speeds
• Consider establishing a desired standard for marking shared bus/bike spaces such as the example at right (from Caltrans DIB 94) to make clear which modes are allowed and which interactions bicyclists and bus drivers should be prepared to navigate - this may include yield markings in the bikeway where suitable space is available for bicyclists to yield to buses • Opportunities for potential additional enhancements or pilot projects to consider at specific locations are indicated in these markups
• Consider additional temporal separation of modes at key intersections using signal timing strategies and/or right turn on red restrictions to reduce bicyclist/pedestrian exposure • Permissive/unsignalized left turns will require drivers to evaluate gaps in multiple lanes of traffic while monitoring the location of bicyclists, consider left-turn restrictions where feasible Interactions between bikes and buses are
likely to generally be minimal with design as
shown. The sidewalk width here could
generally accommodate less confident cyclists
diverting via driveways and intersection curb
ramps when buses are present.
Coordination with VTA to determine if this stop
location can be shifted away from a location
immediately upstream of a signal could be
beneficial in the medium- or long-term.
Interactions between bikes and buses are
likely to generally be minimal with design as
shown. The sidewalk width here could
accommodate less confident cyclists diverting
via driveways and intersection curb ramps
when buses are present (some may also pass
behind the bus stop through the edge of the
gas station site). The stop's location between
two closely spaced driveways makes
short-term modifications challenging.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Consider eliminating 39A and
marking this as a bike lane
where 6' wide and buffered
bike lane past the driveway.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersection, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes. Could provide
buffered bike lane without physical
separation for a portion if needed to
accommodate curb access due to
EVA needs, but there is no
apparent need for access here.
There is an exit-only
driveway here, need to
terminate separation
slightly earlier.
Reduce 39A length approaching
signal, provide buffered bike lane
(not conflict zone or separated
bike lane) so that access to minor
driveways is maintained but bike
priority is more clear.
Reduce 39A length departing
signal, provide buffered bike lane
(not conflict zone or separated
bike lane) so that access to minor
driveways is maintained but bike
priority is more clear leading to
bus stop.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersection, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes. It appears the
other side of this match line already
shows separated bike lane.
This is a moderately low volume stop -
interactions between bikes and buses are
likely to be minimal with design as shown,
but it would be ideal to minimize the dashed
green - this seems like more than needed for
buses to approach/depart the curb.
In the near/medium-term, this could make
sense as a location to consider piloting
in-lane stopping with some kind of boarding
island treatment given stops are likely brief.
This is a moderately low volume stop -
interactions between bikes and buses are
likely to be minimal with design as shown,
but it would be ideal to minimize the dashed
green - this seems like more than needed for
buses to approach/depart the curb.
In the near/medium-term, this could make
sense as a location to consider piloting
in-lane stopping with some kind of boarding
island treatment given stops are likely brief.
Consider separated
bikeway between
driveways.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Convert all of this to
standard Class II bike lanes,
there should be no conflict
markings in this area.
Consider adjusting this to
standard Class II bike lane
rather than conflict zone
once past the bus stop.
The Charleston/Arastradero stops are the third
busiest for transit ridership, but both provide
enough width to consider a near-term pilot of a
shared bike/pedestrian boarding platform that
would allow horizontal separation between stopped
buses and the bikeway with in-lane stops.
The striping shown is generally appropriate for the
geometric constraints, but less confident cyclists
are likely to divert to the sidewalk when buses are
present. Verify installation of green bike markings
with red bus markings is feasible according to plan.
Two-stage turn queue box is in
path-of-travel for buses using
queue jump, adjust location.
The FHWA Interim Approval for
intersection bicycle boxes calls for this
to be marked as a solid bike lane, not a
conflict zone. This would encourage
drivers waiting to turn right when the
light is red to block the bike lane that
allows bicyclists to access the bike box.
That said, this bike box may not be
necessary with a receiving bike lane
provided.
The FHWA Interim Approval for
intersection bicycle boxes
indicates at least 50' of marked
bike lane should be provided for
entry into the bike box.
Convert to standard
Class II bike lanes,
not conflict markings.
The Charleston/Arastradero stops are the third
busiest for transit ridership, but both provide
enough width to consider a near-term pilot of a
shared bike/pedestrian boarding platform that
would allow horizontal separation between
stopped buses and the bikeway with in-lane stops.
The striping shown is appropriate for the
geometric constraints, but less confident cyclists
are likely to divert to the sidewalk when buses are
present.
Evaluate feasibility of
narrowing through bike lane
extension markings to fit a
two-stage turn queue box.
Evaluate feasibility of narrowing
through bike lane extension markings
to fit a two-stage turn queue box. May
be able to also reduce turn radius
given multiple receiving lanes.
Marking should switch
from 39A to sharrows
before right-turn lane
is marked.
This is a moderately used stop according to
ridership data - interactions between bikes and
buses are likely to generally be minimal with
design as shown. The sidewalk width here
could generally accommodate less confident
cyclists diverting when buses are present,
though there is not a driveway or other ramp
immediately upstream to facilitate this.
Coordination with VTA to determine if this stop
location can be shifted away from a location
immediately upstream of a signal could be
beneficial in the medium- or long-term.
This is a moderately used stop according to
ridership data - interactions between bikes and
buses are likely to generally be minimal with
design as shown. The sidewalk width here
could generally accommodate less confident
cyclists diverting via intersection curb ramps
and driveways when buses are present.
General note - existing geometry does not lend
itself to provision of bike boxes, two-stage turn
queue boxes, or bike lane extensions across ECR
at the Maybell Avenue / El Camino Way
intersection. Future efforts could evaluate whether
reallocation of space in the ECR right-of-way
(potentially including lane reductions) could provide
space to enhance multimodal facilities.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Consider separated bikeway,
would reduce bicyclist
exposure to vehicles treating
this space as a right-turn lane.
This is a moderately used stop according to
ridership data - interactions between bikes and
buses are likely to generally be minimal with
design as shown. The sidewalk width here
could generally accommodate less confident
cyclists diverting via intersection curb ramps
and driveways when buses are present.
Provide separated bikeway
between driveways.
Consider separated
bikeway if buses can
maneuver back to the
travel lane more quickly.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Consider separated
bikeway if buses can
maneuver back to the
travel lane more quickly.
Consider separated
bikeway if buses can
maneuver back to the
travel lane more quickly.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
Provide separated bikeway to
discourage vehicles intruding
into bikeway, which will reduce
visibility of peds at crossing.
Consider providing solid
(buffered) bike lane across
these driveways before
starting 39A at intersection.
Limit line?
Consider separated bikeway if
buses can maneuver back to
the travel lane more quickly,
would reduce bicyclist
exposure to vehicles treating
this space as a right-turn lane.
This could pair well with
dedicated corner treatment
mentioned above left.
Consider small separated
bikeway section before
driveways. A quick-build
curb extension in this corner
could help facilitate this,
coordinate with City.
Consider separated bikeway,
would reduce bicyclist
exposure to vehicles treating
this space as a right-turn lane.This is a moderately used stop according to ridership data - interactions between bikes
and buses are likely to generally be
minimal with design as shown. The
sidewalk width here could generally
accommodate less confident cyclists
diverting via intersection curb ramps and
driveways when buses are present.
This is a moderately used stop according to
ridership data - interactions between bikes
and buses are likely to generally be minimal
with design as shown. The sidewalk width
here could generally accommodate less
confident cyclists diverting via driveways
when buses are present.
Two-stage turn queue box
should be placed in front of
bike lane and WB through
lane on El Camino Way,
not in front of right-turn
lane on El Camino Way.
Also need to verify location
shown isn't inside the
crosswalk.
Quick-build dedicated corner may be
feasible here with striping and vertical
delineators; future improvement could
include protected corner construction.
This two-stage turn
queue box is shown
inside the crosswalk.
A two-stage turn queue box may
not be feasible here without
modifying crosswalks; location
shown is partially in the path of
through vehicle traffic and also
impedes path of through
bicyclists on EB Los Robles
(traveling onto El Camino Way).
If noncompliant curb ramp in
this corner is being upgraded,
may be possible to realign
crosswalks.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Provide separated bikeway
between driveways or mark
entire area as (buffered) bike
lane rather than show entire
zone with conflict markings.
This break appears to be solely for access to a fire
hydrant, there are no driveways or other curb
access needs. Continue buffer separation through
this area as marked bike lane (not conflict zone)
and provide break in channelizers/raised separation
devices to allow emergency vehicle access.
Provide separated bikeway to
discourage vehicles intruding
into bikeway, which will reduce
visibility of peds at crossing.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
This is a moderately used stop according to
ridership data - interactions between bikes
and buses are likely to be minimal with
design as shown, but it would be ideal to
reduce downstream dashed green.
Consider separated
bikeway if buses can
maneuver back to the
travel lane more quickly,
but coordination with City
on adjacent land use plans
may be needed.
Provide separated bikeway to
discourage vehicles intruding
into bikeway, which will reduce
visibility of peds at crossing.
Provide separated bikeway to
discourage vehicles intruding
into bikeway, which will reduce
visibility of peds at crossing.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, provide
separated bikeway.
Provide separated bikeway
(can provide openings in
physical separation for EVA
as needed, maintain buffer).
This curb cut has
been eliminated,
provide separated
bikeway here similar
to treatment in other
direction on ECR at
this intersection.
This is a moderately used stop according to
ridership data - interactions between bikes
and buses are likely to generally be
minimal with design as shown, but it would
be ideal to reduce downstream dashed
green. The sidewalk width here could
generally accommodate less confident
cyclists diverting via intersection curb
ramps when buses are present.
This is a moderately used stop according to
ridership data - interactions between bikes
and buses are likely to be minimal with
design as shown, but it would be ideal to
reduce downstream dashed green.
Consider separated
bikeway if buses can
maneuver back to the
travel lane more quickly.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Mark as solid Class II
bike lane until
approach to Pepper
Avenue, including
across driveway.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
Evaluate adjustments to signal
operations and bikeway width to allow
two-stage turn queue boxes off of ECR
onto Hansen/Portage given offset
intersection geometry precludes more
typical turning or protected intersection
strategies. (Extends beyond SHOPP.)
Beyond SHOPP, evaluate elimination
of pork chop islands and reallocation
of space to improve pedestrian
crossings and bike circulation.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes. This is a moderately low volume stop - interactions between bikes and buses are
likely to be minimal with design as shown,
but some cyclists may elect to diver to the
sidewalk via intersection curb ramps (note
that current site construction on east side
of ECR may temporary affect this).
In the near/medium-term, it may be
desirable to coordinate with VTA to
evaluate relocation of this stop - it is
located within what is functionally a single
signalized intersection at Hansen/Portage.
This is a moderately low volume stop - interactions
between bikes and buses are likely to be minimal with
design as shown, but some cyclists may elect to diver
to the sidewalk via intersection curb ramps. This could be a good location to look at some kind of bus
boarding island (or bike/pedestrian boarding platform)
in the near-term in coordination with the transit
agencies to address this issue. There may be space
available to allow construction of a full bus boarding
island with separation of bikes here if pursued in
coordination with adjacent property owners.
Consider separated
bikeway if buses can
maneuver back to the
travel lane more quickly.
Consider using edgelines to better
define pork chop island and allow
marking of solid bike space
(possible separated) adjacent to it.
Provide separated bikeway
between driveways or mark
entire area as (buffered) bike
lane rather than show entire
zone with conflict markings.
If separate left- and right-turn lanes
are not needed on Hansen, could
consider modifying this to a
quick-build protected corner around
the existing pork chop island in place
(require counts/coordinate with City).
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Solid bike lane, no need
for 39A downstream of
intersection.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
Consider providing separated
bikeway between two driveways.
In near-term, consider phase
separations or other signal timing
strategies to separate vehicle
movements from active modes
(including peds) and/or provide greater
warning of interactions. Requires
Caltrans and County coordination.
Crosswalk setbacks could make
two-stage turn queue boxes feasible
on all legs to facilitate bicyclist
movements as part of SHOPP.
Mark as solid Class II
bike lane beyond
limits of bus stop.
This is a moderately busy bus stop serving
providers beyond VTA only. Modified
geometry shown in plans would
accommodate bicycling on sidewalk, but
would be appropriate to pursue revised
geometry that could provide bus boarding
island given potential for additional space.
The FHWA Interim Approval for
intersection bicycle boxes
indicates at least 50' of marked
bike lane should be provided for
entry into the bike box.
This is likely a moderately busy bus stop
in terms of ridership - data were not
available due to recent temporary
closures. Modified geometry shown in
plans would accommodate bicycling on
sidewalk with bicyclists able to access this
space via intersection curb ramps when
buses are present.
Mark as solid Class II bike lane
beyond limits of bus stop if
possible - coordinate with VTA.
Consider adding edgeline to reduce
travel lane width; could include
reflectors and or delineators behind
edgeline where feasible to
discourage drivers from traversing. Mark as solid Class II bike lane, provide shorter 39A segment at
minor intersections.
Consider short section of
separated bikeway before
right-turn lane opens to
reduce distance bicyclists
mix with vehicles.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
This is a moderately low volume stop -
interactions between bikes and buses are
likely to be minimal with design as shown,
but it would be ideal to reduce downstream
dashed green. The sidewalk is generous
adjacent to this stop and less confident
bicyclists may utilize that space between
Oxford and the driveway.
Consider ~50' of solid bike lane here to
break up conflict zones.
While facility width standards vary in
different documents, it may also be a better
bicycle experience to consider a 6' Class IV
bikeway with 2' buffer including separation
(or even 5'+3'), then driveway breaks could
be treated as dashed green.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes. Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes. Consider
protected bikeway here (see PD-24
for comments on continuation).
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
Consider short segment of separated
bikeway between inbound and outbound
driveways for Jack In The Box - the
downstream taper of the separation can be
omitted if needed due to constraints. This
should still allow enough space for 50' of
39A approaching Cambridge Avenue.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes. Break separated
bikeway for driveway.
With closure of
California Avenue,
this can be separated
bikeway since vehicle
right turns will no
longer exist.
Lane configuration may change
with California Avenue closure, bike
left turn can either be
accommodated with two-stage turn
queue box to reach NB ECR or be
marked using dotted lines with
green through intersection per CA
MUTCD Figure 9C-1(CA) if bike
lane shifts to be between separate
left- and right-turn lanes.
Adjust dimensions to
provide two-stage
turn queue box from
NB ECR to WB
California Avenue.
Determine if bike
striping through
intersection can be
adjusted to provide
two-stage turn queue
box from SB ECR to
EB California Avenue.
The California Avenue stops have VTA's highest ridership on ECR in Palo Alto and serve as time point stops for 22/522 service. At times, much of the block face between California Avenue and Cambridge Avenue is occupied by buses.
Striping as indicated is appropriate for SHOPP. Some cyclists may divert to sidewalk using curb ramps at the signalized intersections (though sidewalk is well utilized). Signs warning bicyclists of potential interactions with buses and pedestrians could be considered.
Consider short-term pilot of shared pedestrian/bike boarding islands that allow buses to stop in the outside travel lane to evaluate effect on safety and operations in collaboration with Caltrans and VTA. If buses stopped in-lane, a shared
boarding island could provide 4' of separation between a stopped bus and a 5' bikeway for bicyclists and transit riders to gauge interactions. In medium- or long-term, evaluate projects that could provide additional space to separate bicyclists and buses through reduction of travel lanes and/or other cross-section adjustments.
The California Avenue stops have VTA's highest ridership on ECR in Palo Alto and serve as time point stops for 22/522 service.
Striping as indicated is appropriate for SHOPP. Some cyclists may divert to sidewalk using curb ramps at the signalized intersections (though sidewalk is well utilized and space constrained). Signs warning bicyclists of potential interactions with buses and pedestrians could be considered.
Consider short-term pilot of shared pedestrian/bike boarding islands that allow buses to stop in the outside travel lane to evaluate effect on safety and operations in collaboration with Caltrans and VTA. If buses stopped in-lane, a shared
boarding island could provide 5' of separation between a stopped bus and a 5' bikeway for bicyclists and transit riders to gauge interactions. In medium- or long-term, evaluate projects that could provide additional space to separate bicyclists and buses through reduction of travel lanes and/or other cross-section adjustments.
May be feasible to provide
bikeway separation,
coordinate with VTA on
stop length needs. In-lane
stopping pilot would help
facilitate this.
If left-turn lane can be
eliminated, add
median refuge.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
General note - future project evaluating
reallocation of space on ECR cross-section could
also look at protected corners/intersections for
crossing bicycle facilities at intersections like
California Avenue and Stanford Avenue.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Two-stage turn queue box
should be placed in front of
bike lane and EB through
lane on Serra, not in front
of right-turn lane on Serra.
Two-stage turn queue box
should be placed in front of
bike lane and WB through
lane on Park, not in front of
right-turn lane on Park.
Consider introducing
two-stage turn queue
boxes for turns onto
ECR as well.
Consider introducing
two-stage turn queue
boxes for turns onto
ECR as well.
This is a moderately low volume stop -
interactions between bikes and buses are
likely to be minimal with design as shown
(plus the Stanford trail is an attractive
alternate route), but it would be ideal to
minimize the dashed green - this seems like
more than needed for buses to
approach/depart the curb.
In the near/medium-term, this could make
sense as a location to consider piloting
in-lane stopping with some kind of boarding
island treatment given stops are likely brief.
This seems like it can be
separated bikeway if buses
can maneuver back to the
travel lane more quickly.
This is a moderately low volume stop -
interactions between bikes and buses are
likely to be minimal with design as shown
(plus the Stanford trail is an attractive
alternate route), but it would be ideal to
minimize the dashed green - this seems like
more than needed for buses to
approach/depart the curb (see PD-25).
In the near/medium-term, this could make
sense as a location to consider piloting
in-lane stopping with a bus boarding island
treatment that allows bikes to pass behind
the island given bus stops are likely brief
and there is enough space to separate
bicyclists from transit riders.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes. Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
This is a moderately low volume stop -
interactions between bikes and buses are
likely to be minimal with design as shown
and driveways/intersections provide
opportunity for bikes to divert to sidewalk (if
not already diverted to Stanford trail at the
signalized intersection).
As this is effectively an in-lane stop as
shown, it may be desirable to coordinate
with VTA on potential to shift the stop to a
nearby location that might also allow some
kind of bus boarding island/curb extension
treatment (may not be short-term solution).
Consider providing separated
bikeway here and allowing 39A
across driveway to the north
serve as the break for Leland
Avenue intersection.
The FHWA Interim Approval for
intersection bicycle boxes calls for this
to be marked as a solid bike lane, not a
conflict zone. This would encourage
drivers waiting to turn right when the
light is red to block the bike lane that
allows bicyclists to access the bike box.
That said, this bike box may not be
necessary with a receiving bike lane
provided. Can a 5' bike lane be
extended to the intersection and the
separated bikeway extended?
Suggest shifting the two-stage turn queue box
to be more directly in front of Stanford Avenue
to improve visibility of bicyclists to approaching
vehicles. Location of box shown in plans could
result in drivers losing track of waiting bikes if
they try to turn right on red (which should be
prohibited). Adjust crossbike accordingly.
Consider introducing
two-stage turn queue
boxes for turns onto
ECR as well.
Consider introducing
two-stage turn queue
boxes for turns onto
ECR as well.
Consider marking as solid
Class II bike lane across
driveways.
Consider marking as solid Class II bike
lane across driveways.
While facility width standards vary in
different documents, it may also be a
better bicycle experience to consider a 6'
Class IV bikeway with 2' buffer including
separation (or even 5'+3'), then driveway
breaks could be treated as dashed green.
Ensure existing ped
refuges are maintained
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Should not use sharrows in
intersection. Suggest using
dotted lines with green through
intersection per CA MUTCD
Figure 9C-1(CA).
This is a low volume stop - interactions
between bikes and buses are likely to be
minimal with design as shown (plus the
Stanford trail is an attractive alternate route),
but it would be ideal to minimize the dashed
green - this seems like more than needed for
buses to approach/depart the curb.
This is a low volume stop - interactions
between bikes and buses are likely to be
minimal with design as shown (plus the
Stanford trail or adjacent sidewalk are both
alternates), but it would be ideal to minimize
the dashed green - this seems like more than
needed for buses to approach/depart the curb.
Bring bike lane stripe
to intersection.
This isn't a vehicle interaction
zone at a T-intersection,
consider marking as solid bike
lane through intersection.
The FHWA Interim Approval for
intersection bicycle boxes
indicates at least 50' of marked
bike lane should be provided for
entry into the bike box.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
There should be no interactions in
this space, suggest marking as solid
bike lane at minimum and potentially
including buffer/separation.
Eliminate 39A section downstream
from intersections, extend bikeway
and force vehicles to turn directly
into travel lanes.
If feasible, provide edgeline and
physical separation to separate the
bus stop from the frontage
intersection and provide a short
segment of solid bike lane between
to reduce exposure for bicyclists
and clarify positioning for drivers.
Consider separated
bikeway if buses can
maneuver back to the
travel lane more quickly.
It's unclear if this intersection
design accommodates turns
from SB ECR to Churchill or the
adjacent Churchill path - would
recommend some kind of
jughandle treatment to facilitate
this bike movement separate
from pedestrians.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
This is an extremely low volume stop -
interactions between bikes and buses are likely
to be minimal with design as shown (plus the
Stanford trail is an attractive alternate route),
but it would be ideal to minimize the dashed
green - this seems like more than needed for
buses to approach/depart the curb. Separate
dashed green is not likely needed because of
the driveway that is typically closed.
This is an extremely low volume stop - interactions
between bikes and buses are likely to be minimal
with design as shown (plus the Stanford trail is an
attractive alternate route in both directions for
those who aren't fearless/confident riders), but it
would be ideal to minimize the dashed green - this
seems like more than needed for buses to
approach/depart the curb.
Consider separated
bikeway if buses can
maneuver back to the
travel lane more quickly.
Consider separated bikeway if
buses move toward the curb later,
including using the area in front of
the driveway.
Consider separated
bikeway if buses move
toward the curb later.
See PD-25
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Add edgeline to reduce width
of outside lanes (universal
where no bike facility).
Suggest either adding a quick-build dedicated
corner here with additional striping/vertical
separation (see NACTO Don't Give Up at the
Intersection) to keep drivers from passing over
this corner or shifting the two-stage turn queue
box to be more directly in front of the right lane
on Embarcadero Road to improve visibility of
bicyclists to approaching vehicles. Location of
box shown in plans could result in drivers
losing track of waiting bikes if they try to turn
right on red (which should be prohibited).
Need to bring the bike lane
markings back to the intersection
to make the crossbike across ECR
work here. May also need to make
connection opportunity to Stanford
trail more clear at intersection.
Suggest removing this - bike
aren't required to turn right and
this could simply be signed as
the end of the bike lane.
If provided, place in
center of travel lane.
This can be solid and
separated since right
turns are channelized, not
occurring at the signal.
Ideally, a bike pocket here would provide bicyclists exiting the Stanford trail an opportunity to stage at the signal before continuing southbound. There is plenty of spa ec and could be separated with striping and physical elements from
channelized rights.
A long-term opportunity
could be to consider proper
trail crossings for the
Stanford trail.
Marguerite stops here.
Given adjacent
school and availability
of space, a two-stage
turn queue box here
would be desirable.
Treat this part as a separated bikeway
to avoid vehicles cruising in bicycle
space. Upstream dashing would be
provided for transit, downstream
would be provided for driveway
conflicts and end of bikeway.
This is the VTA stop.
This transit stop is fairly high
volume, but the driveway cuts
would provide opportunity to
avoid buses using the sidewalk.
Fearless/confident bicyclists
may travel here, but most other
bicyclists will probably divert
across to the Stanford trail and
not pass this stop.
This is a fairly busy bus stop, so it may be
accurate that this much stopping space is
needed. Fearless/confident bicyclists may
travel here, but most bicyclists will probably
divert to the Stanford trail and not pass this
stop on-street.
Long-term, there is likely sufficient space to
consider partnering with adjacent property
owners and VTA to implement permanent
bus boarding islands at this location.
General note - the ECR/Embarcadero/Galvez
intersection generally has enough space that it
may be feasible to pursue a long-term protected
intersection design.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Add edgeline to reduce width
of outside lanes (universal
where no bike facility).
Consider adjusting striping to make a
more clearly delineated single-lane
exit that opens into additional lanes
on ramp. Design as shown provides
less clarity to drivers.
eline to reduce width
e lanes (universal
o bike facility).
This transit stop is fairly high
volume, but most bicyclists will
not interact with it since they will
be on the adjacent Stanford trail.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Should not have bike lane
symbol in intersection. Suggest
using dotted lines with green
through intersection per CA
MUTCD Figure 9C-1(CA).
Bikes turning across painted
buffer and then having 39A with
green in the shifting area for
drivers is confusing for all users.
May make more sense to more
clearly mark an edgeline and
segregate travel paths for
drivers and bicyclists, see
below.
This entire area appears to avoid
marking the bike lane on top of the
concrete bus pad/gutter, but the
much larger width of the concrete
pad and alignment exiting the Quarry
Road intersection leave bicycles
more exposed by doing so. May need
to at least shift bike lane near Quarry
to clarify path of travel for vehicles
entering from University ramp.
Add edgeline to reduce width
of outside lanes (universal
where no bike facility).
11.0 ft
Could make this narrower
than 7' to provide more
distance for vehicle shift.
If feasible, make this
solid green with solid
white stripe to discourage
vehicles from entering.
Could shift bicycle toward curb here
and make solid bike lane (or even add
buffer/separation) to avoid long stretch
of exposure for bicyclists.
Is this just directing bicycles
into the curb ramp opening?
That is an atypical application
of intersection markings.
If feasible, introduce some separated
bikeway length here to avoid drivers
using it as a very long right-turn lane.
There is a lot of space here, suggest coordination
with Samtrans on near-term pilot of a shared
bike/pedestrian boarding platform that would
allow horizontal separation between stopped
buses and the bikeway with in-lane stops.
Depending on ridership, it may also be possible to
consider eliminating this northbound stop since
it's quite close to the Palo Alto Transit Center for
people accessing transit.
This could be a good location to look at
some kind of bus boarding island (or
bike/pedestrian boarding platform) in the
near-term in coordination with the transit
agencies to address this issue.
Bicyclists can access trail
here to avoid interaction
with buses at stop.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
It may be preferable to put a
buffer or separation here with a
narrower bikeway. Could also
somewhat narrow bike lane and
add buffer between LT lane and
through lanes to reduce shift
through intersection.
Should not have bike lane
symbol in intersection. Suggest
using dotted lines with green
through intersection per CA
MUTCD Figure 9C-1(CA).
Bike lane should not terminate this way -
continue further north after crossing the
right-turn traffic before terminating. Using
signal timing strategies to avoid exposing
bicyclists to traffic attempting to turn onto
ECR from Palo Alto Avenue is
recommended. Long-term, a more
conventional intersection approach on
Palo Alto Avenue could help to clarify
right-of-way between modes.
Consider providing
solid Class II bike
lane striping exiting
Sand Hill Road, only
use 39A for 50-100
feet before Pistachel
Place driveway.
Solid bike lane, no need
for 39A downstream of
intersection.
Could improve visibility of
bicyclists by shifting
toward travel lanes before
opening right-turn lane.
Note that this bicycle left turn is not accommodated today, signage indicates bikes should go through to Palo Alto
Avenue only. If providing this movement, recommend
phase-separating turns off Palo Alto Avenue onto NB ECR to avoid interactions with bicyclists.
Provide bike lane
extension through
intersection if bike
lane is being marked
on far side.
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.
DRAFT 5/20/24
Why a 5'/2' pattern instead of
the more typical 2'/2' pattern
(which has been used to date
on El Camino Real)?
These comments represent suggestions based on a review of the proposed design plans and existing conditions, but require further engineering evaluation to verify feasibility.