GENERAL NOTES

1. The following notes consist of individual comments (not an expression of will of entire group) (not quantitative)

2. Sorted by street address given - (I know ‘North’ is not really North)

2.1. EASTERLY REGION Cowper to Middlefield (Minutes)

1. Middlefield

a) 218 Middle Field – 15 years there. Accidents at Everett have reduced. But speed is a major issue. (Cars have gone up onto sidewalk) can we get light sign telling people how fast they are going?

b) Everett/Middlefield intersection tremendous quantity of accidents (34) now – no accidents since calming. Seems smoother.

c) Everett/Middlefield intersection was highest accident place, and highest cut-thru in PA, and highest neighborhood counts in PA (2200/day) not being a NIMBI if we get normal levels of traffic

d) Modifications to Lytton/Middlefield, please move line up to original place (people don’t know that they can turn right on red so cars back up)

2. Byron

a) Lots of traffic on Byron bet Everett and Lytton Middlefield gets backed up.

b) On Byron between Hawthorn and Everett – cars have greatly increased and are faster. Cars trying to avoid barriers are too fast. 30 seconds does matter to response time for F/P/A

3. Webster

a) 717 Webster – lived

4. Cowper

a) 223 Cowper – feel that it is better. Visibility problem at intersections. Lytton is safer than Everett and more appropriate for commuter traffic

b) 300 block Cowper (4/5 years) inequitable levels of traffic. Not ok or fair to move the traffic to different, traffic study was done at height of dot.com too most aggressive approach, need less aggressive approach to calm all the streets

Bulb outs are a mistake

c) 340 Cowper (here for 3 years) we are in a city. Need something that works or majority and not a few. Accept that you live in a city

d) Hawthorne / Cowper – supports the traffic calming. Important to check which streets have negative impact.

600 block Everett – prefer preventative protection of the barriers

2.2. MIDDLE REGION Bryant to Cowper (Minutes)

1. Tasso

a) 134 Tasso – getting more traffic and fast speed but still pro, are there increased accidents on Middlefield now

2. Bryant

a) 130 Bryant St. – before cars too fast. Now there are more joggers and walkers. More relaxed and safe. Now it’s wonderful. Poor signage initially caused irritation of drivers. Now better signage.

b) 267 Bryant – we really need more stop signs in addition to current plan. Especially at Bryant and Everett speed is really bad.

3. Waverly

a) 101 Waverly (50 years here)

Palo Alto Ave used to be a 200 with traffic, now better, we are a neighborhood

b) 101 Waverly – loves the trial, but the bulb out on Everett – too close to Middlefield too narrow needs modification

c) 176 Waverly – people are parking in front of barriers that is a concern. Please post location of counters. Can we get those locations identified?

d) 228 Waverly – concerned about cut though traffic support calming. How about additional tables and stop signs on the cross streets (Bryant, Emerson, Ramona)?

e) 284 Waverly (lived there for 30 years) prefers forced traffic lights on the corners of Hawthorne/Everett at Alma and middle field. Car was totaled. Wants traffic lights.

Webster/hawthorne – loves it in spite of inconvenience

f) 292 Waverly (3 years in neighborhood) noise has significantly reduced. Noticed that increased load on Lytton could flow better too much backup cars, concerned about safety. For calming, not closures. Not equitable to all. Should readdress

g) Waverly/Everett – see more people walking to park. Fewer drivers, more bikers

4. Poe

a) Back to DTN (On Poe) after being gone to Seattle. Loves traffic calming.

2.3. WESTERLY REGION Alma to Bryant

1. Emerson

a) 158 Emerson – all the traffic has come here. Family safety is a concern. Please help us regain safety / calm

b) 160 Emerson – really bad. Emerson ¿ Palo alto ¿ Menlo Park. Lots of traffic on Byron bet Everett and Lytton Middlefield gets backed up. Then come Everett ¿ Byron – Lytton, also we have to reduce access. Hard to get onto Lytton, can boundaries be re-looked at?

c) 213 Emerson (6.5 years) everyone is coming down his street. Hostile drivers, why not 4-way stops on every corner along with traffic table? Lytton is not safe to cross now

d) 231 Emerson – this redistributes traffic on to street. Seems that there is less police control, Bryant – too fast – no stop signs because it is a bike corridor, need one, now I do a grand tour of the neighborhood while I zigzag through

e) 235 Emerson – traffic has greatly increased. Object to this after buying house – now street isn’t calm.

2. Alma

2.4. NORTH-SOUTH STREETS

2.5. Everett

1. 400 Everett – learning curve for people coming thru. Things are better

2. 548 Everett ct (also lived on Emerson) better to have stop signs. Didn’t want to live in a gated community

Lytton and Everett on Middlefield – people are confused about new stopping point on Middlefield. Traffic diversion is not traffic calming

3. 626 Everett – Alma / Lytton – too much traffic, too dangerous. Now go to forest in order to come back to DTN. Difference between streets and avenues. Avenues are Wider. Streets are too narrow.

4. 654 Everett – implementation is not equitable. Hard to get out of cars, children in core do not have monopoly on safety, willow has traffic tables – seems to work fine, move the traffic barrier, wants more thought and equality

2.6. Hawthorne

1. 275 Hawthorne – Joe Durand – represent unblock. Not against traffic calming, just diversions. Put new measures more appropriate at same time that barrier is taken out

2. 419 Hawthorne (7 years) – lots of fast cars before. Difficult to get into driveway. Huge reduction in park

3. 453 Hawthorne – trial has moved traffic to Emerson maybe need more barriers

4. 602 Hawthorne – be patient – this is a process. Really like is let’s voice our opinions. Let’s see how things can be modified before throwing out

2.7. Lytton avenue

2.8. Palo alto avenue

1. 300 block PA Ave – takes no more time to get in/out and it is safer

2. 320 Palo Alto Ave – more crime due to police not capturing criminals – that’s an issue

3. 436 P.A. Ave. – law officer says that the # of drunks leaving (driving out of) DTN is reduced

2.9. Ruthven

1. 429 Ruthven (4 years in the neighborhood) Josh Mogal – worried that Ruthven would get too much traffic. Stayed involved. While traffic is a little worse but not that bad. Before trial – problem was the speed on Ruthven after all neighborhood is better. Like the 4-way stops also

2.10. University

1. 488 University – have 4-month-old baby. Yelling at fast drivers. Just passing traffic from one area to another. Agree there is enforcement issue. This is not solving anything. It’s not enough

3. OTHER TOPICS

3.1. Overall comments

1. Calming isn’t perfect, but feels it is safer. Safety to kids is much more important than 30 seconds of reduced response time

2. Up to 15 yrs – DTN was calm. Then got very busy with traffic. Now it is very calm.

3.2. Emergency response

1. Are fire and police allowed to give free comment?

2. Benchmark is < 4 minutes. Average in our neighborhood is 1.5 minutes

3. Can F/P respond individually?

4. Can redesign posts so that they go down when emergency vehicle goes through?

5. Concern over increase of 30 sec – 60 sec will impact people’s safety

6. Concern that F/P response will take longer than now

7. Fear for life before with cars but now better. What’s more likely a house burning down or someone hit by a car?

8. Incident – on Waverly and Everett, Fire did not have the key

9. Talked and police officer doesn’t like it.

10. Want the fire dept to give their opinions to the city

11. Will they lose their jobs if they give honest opinion?

3.3. Funding

1. Budgetary constraints

2. Current structures will be “permanent” until $

3. Possibility of new re-signed traffic calming system budgeted if what we have taken out… very little chance

3.4. Assessment at end of trial

1. Counters will probably be placed where that had been placed on locations where there are problems

2. Hose counts - base line (now 10/15)

3. Issue - # of hose counters

4. Traffic calming measures have evolved over last few years. New things may be better

3.5. Sources of information

1. City of Palo Alto – Website, notes on traffic page

2. DTNNA.com

3. http://dtnforum.com

4. http://dtnna.com

5. Other neighborhood (college terrace and evergreen) should be reviewed for P/F impact

6. Transportation dept

7. Transportation Dept has additional info/detail

4.

4.1. Goals for the Meeting on 9-18-03

1. Reduce cut through volume

2. Reduce speed

3. Avoid too negative impact on emergency services

4.2. Objective of meetings

1. Gather specific problems at specific locations

4.3. Meetings

1. Middlefield to Cowper; 9/24 at All Saints

a) 9/24 – here

2. Cowper to Bryant; 9/24 at Avenidas

a) 9/24 – sr. center

3. Bryant to Alma 9/25 at All Saints

a) 9/25 – here

4.4. Sequence of events after these meetings

1. Start 1998

2. Trial process

3. Hose counts - base line (now 10/15)

a) East west

b) Smaller streets

4. Transportation Dept has additional info/detail

a) Issue - # of hose counters

b) Views -transportation Dept - ID problems, fix them - majority ok with plan - TD recommend. Differences within neighborhood on impacts of plan

5. Transportation Dept Recommendations

6. 3 week interval

7. Survey

a) 11/12 mail

b) 11/24 dead line

8. Planning Commission 12/12 12/17

9. City Council meeting January 2004

4.5. Josh’s slide show covered options considered for traffic calming.