Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 1:26 AM

Palo Alto planners: Cut Arastradero lanes
Planning commission approves plan to redesign lane configurations, install left-turn lanes

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Weekly Staff

Posted by Parent, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 7:22 am

Many of the speeders on this road are Gunn students who race off campus to get to ECR first. This happens at lunchtime and after school. The safest way to prevent this would be to increase driving age to 18, but of course Americans do not see this as a solution to any of our problems even though most other countries do not allow schoolchildren to drive.

Also most Gunn students riding their bikes should not use Arastadero but the residential streets. There are at least two back or side entrances to Gunn from residential streets.

Posted by palo alto mom, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Jun 25, 2009 at 8:40 am

What's ECR?

What other schools are between Foothill and El Camino besides Gunn and Terman?

Posted by alex, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 8:48 am

Kids are going to speed no matter what!

What we should have is a harder driving/permit test. It is way too cheap and easy to get a licence.

Please no more medians like in DT MV, horrible!

And where are we getting money for this???

6.2 mill? thats about what the schools need, right?

Posted by Parent, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 8:50 am

ECR is El Camino Real

Posted by Barbar, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 9:02 am

Yes, it will slow traffic down, alright - into bumper to bumper, vert slow and very polluting. I have noticed the great increase in traffic on Arastradero, and cutting off a lane for any part of it is going to be trouble for cars. And yes, I do think people in cars have rights too.

Posted by Gennady Sheyner, Palo Alto Weekly staff writer, on Jun 25, 2009 at 9:19 am
Gennady Sheyner is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Palo Alto Mom,

The six schools around this segment of Arastradero Road are: Gunn High School, Terman Middle School, Palo Alto Montessori School, Bowman International School, Young Life Christian Preschool and Briones Elementary School.

Posted by RS, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 9:32 am

Its easy to blame the HS kids for speeding, but fact is most adults speed too. Even the VTA buses do it. Driving over the speed limit is just what all drivers seem to do.

If you want to see some creative driving just be near an elementary school when the bell rings. I always wonder what the kid is going to possibly learn in those first few minutes that merits speeding and blowing through stop signs.

Posted by Sarah, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 9:39 am

I disagree that kids are going to speed no matter what. Better road design can make traffic flow more smoothly and at safer speeds.

If you see VTA bus drivers speeding, please report them to the VTA.

Posted by Ho Hum, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:05 am

The huge irony of this redesign is that if traffic is light vehicle speeds will increase. You only have to look at Charleston between Middlefield and Louis, vehicles race each other to be in front as the two stacking lanes converge into a single lane.

The only time traffic really slows down is during the morning commute when vehicles are so backed up they come to a complete stop.

The advantage of this redesign is wider bicycle lanes.

Posted by Commander McBragg, a resident of another community, on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:29 am

The speed limit here is 25. If you drive 25, you'll be the only one, and everyone else will be passing you. It gets treated like a 35 zone, with most people doing about 40.

Posted by Priscilla Williams, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:35 am

It's true that many vehicles speed on East Charleston Road between Louis Road and Middlefield Road, but conditions were worse before the lanes were reduced. We then had speeding and unsafe lane changing with people driving SUVs having trouble controlling their vehicle. These people would swerve into the bike lane because they were going too fast while changing lanes.

Posted by Tim, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:39 am

How much money did you spend on this solution? Cutting eastbound traffic to one lane is such a short sighted and misinformed solution typical of consultants and "city planners". Did any of you look at the back up along arasterdero west of foothill at 8am on a school morning. It is often past old trace road. The back up at the stoplight at Terman is 3 blocks long for traffic heading east. Now you want to make it one lane and double those back ups? It's laughable that you experts believe that 50% less lane capacity will carry the same amount of through traffic. Stupid.

Posted by Barron Park, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:55 am

I have seen the increase of traffic and to make this a ONE LANE, HELP!!, this will make it

worse for all of us who live here in this area, you crawl up the street when school

in in session and where is the money coming from??

Most people will use all the side streets cut through and more traffic on our very

small streets in Barron Park.

Posted by energyman, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 11:14 am

Reminder: an idling vehicle gets 0 (ZERO) miles per gallon. Despite all the nice talk about Greening Palo Alto by public officials, these traffic "solutions" only contribute to air pollution and more green house gases.

I hope that smarter traffic controls are part of the plan. They are programmed to respond to traffic volume and change the timing accordingly. Also, traffic signals have to be coordinated between El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway to smooth out traffic flows.

Eliminating left turns from Arastradero into Gunn Hi's parking lot will eliminate one additional temptation to drive to school

It is no longer appropriate to pay for parking lots for teenagers who are quite capable of walking or biking to school. No taxpayer should have to pay for the costs of a 'commuter school'. Yes, I know, the only time you get 'quality time' with your teen is when you have them trapped in the car when you drive them to school. Well, its time for a change as you grow up with your offspring.

Posted by Irvin Dawid, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 11:27 am

I attended the meeting last night (I actually was there for the study session on the Housing Element Update) but stayed to listen.

First, bravo to all of you who attended and supported the staff-recommended 'hybrid' approach of lane-reduction. Rather fittingly, this is called in many planning circles a "road diet", and the effect will be to increase walking and biking - which will promote healthy living not just for children but all of us by encouraging non-motor vehicle travel.

Second, I was disturbed to hear the contract planner and staff use the term 'accidents'. Most of us transportation-reform advocates shun that term, using 'crash, collision, or incident' instead. That's not to say we don't think the vast majority of these incidents are intentional, it's that most are 'preventable'. This terminology campaign actually comes from the National Highway Safety Administration and public health advocates, not crazy cyclists. Unfortunately, NHTSA's "Crashes are not Accidents" campaign never caught on with the media and many transportation professionals.

Finally, like most of those who spoke last night, I too commend the staff, particularly Gayle Likens who, if I heard correctly, will be retiring soon, for a job well-done!

Posted by A cyclist, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 11:40 am

I cycle the Louis-Middlefield section of Charleston most mornings. From my perspective, the restructuring from two to one traffic lanes seemed to bring little benefit. Yes, it's always nice to have a wide bike lane, but as often happens with bike lanes, the lane is widest where the road was already fairly safe and it still narrows way down at the Middlefield junction.

Posted by ur, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Who is this "staff" you keep referrring to? I gather it has something to do with the people at the city. Is this a method for allowing the city planners who came up with this idea to hide their identity? How hard would it be for the Weakly to put a real person's name in the story every time they're tempted to say "staff"?

I'd write more, but my staff is calling me.

Posted by IJustWorkHere, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 12:55 pm

The traffic will disapte once the Roche Palo Alto campus closes down. However, since VMWare opened their new campus right next door, the traffic to that area has increased 5 fold. Nice reasoning though, "let's cut the lanes down to three, so people will slow down." Aren't speed bumps a more cost effective solution. Plus if people do not speed on that stretch of road, how will the PAPD meet their end of the month ticket quota.

Posted by Gunn drop-off?, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Jun 25, 2009 at 1:19 pm

A county sheriff was waving cars away from the VTA stop adjacent to Gunn on Miranda one morning at the end of the school year saying that there was absolutely no drop off allowed there and never should have been. Gunn promotes the use of this area for drop off because they have an agreement between the VTA and PAPD. Has that agreement changed? I believe the sheriff is responsible for VTA coverage; perhaps this particular deputy wasn't aware of the agreement. If that option is no longer available then any models based on current traffic patterns won't reflect the additional cars that will continue down Arastradero into Gunn to drop off instead of turning down Miranda.

Posted by Resident, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm

I am concerned about the trend in Palo Alto to cut off another one of its' thoroughfares. As a city with a bustling economy (and an seemingly endless number of office buildings being built) we are being reduced to only a couple of ways for people to drive through town. At the commute hour, traffic routinely backs up to Gunn HS on Arastradero. I can't imagine what it will be like when it's reduced to one lane.

Like the bicycle commuter, I don't see a big difference in the bike lane on the Charleston corridor.

Posted by zanon, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 2:01 pm

This road is absolutely deserted most of the time. People ignore the 25 because there is no one else on the road.

Posted by Former Gunn Parent, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 2:29 pm

I hope the initial trials of reducing Arastradero to one lane each way had better results than when that was tried for Middlefield through Midtown — traffic there stopped dead and the plan to reduce that stretch to one lane each way was quickly dropped.

Also, I hope that there will be l-o-o-o-n-g left-turn lanes for westbound traffic turning into Terman and for eastbound cars turning onto Coulombe — you're going to need them if you don't want traffic to stop dead the entire length of Middlefield during school drop-off and pick-up times. (A dedicated turn lane like that on Alma south of Oregon would probably do the trick, but I don't know how plans for a median strip could fit with that.)

Like Energyman, I would also hope that smarter traffic signals would be a part of the plan.

Mr. Dawid's statement above lends credence to my suspicion that a(n ulterior?) motive of this "improvement" is to try to make driving to school so unpleasant that students will opt to walk or bike instead (or their parents will force them). I suspect that it will not have this effect, and will only make life more difficult for those of us with special-needs kids who pretty much have to drive them to and from school each day. (This includes many more kids than just the severely physically disabled — you'd never know my son needed such help just by looking at him, and I'd guess there are a lot more like him out there.) Also, some kids just live too far from the schools to make walking or even biking practical, and the recent cutbacks to bus service will only add to this pain.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 2:45 pm

I agree with Resident/Ventura neighborhood. I strongly oppose cutting down the number of lanes on Arastradero/Charleston.

Posted by Chris, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 2:58 pm

In the stretch of E. Charleston between Louis Rd. and Middlefield and down to Nelson Dr., all kids going to school on bicycles use the sidewalks. Why? Because the road is too dangerous even with bike lanes.

As Ho Hum said, cars speed up as the road east bound from Middlefield narrows to one lane. By the time the cars reach Sutherland, they're going over 30 mph and still accelerating. The only thing that slows them down is a long backup from the light at Fabian Way.

As a bicyclist my perception is the bike lanes are not safe. So much for encouraging bike riding.

Posted by jack, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 3:51 pm

I applaud those that showed up at the meeting and made their voices heard. Regardless of the final decision, those who showed up got what they wanted, and that's how it should remain. Those who didn't show up, you will always have Town Square Forums to voice your concerns constructively and with great hopes of influencing the decision.

Posted by KB, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 6:19 pm

I think this is a terrible idea. Traffic is already backed up on Arastradero during rush hour. So how will cutting lanes improve that situation? It will make it worse, and push more traffic onto Page Mill, which is its own disaster during rush hour. Low speed bumps and a few more left turn lanes would probably be a better solution.

People certainly don't stick to the 25 mph speed limit when there's no traffic, but that's because a 25 mph limit on a mostly straight four lane road is fairly ridiculous. Why not just face reality and raise the limit to 35? Forget the residents who live on Arastradero -- if you bought a house on a four lane road, you knew what you were getting into. I have no sympathy for those folks.

The real problem is that the Foothill / Arastradero / Miranda intersection is all fouled up. Whoever put Miranda (the access road to the VA) 100 ft from Foothill ought to be fired. The city should really be re-routing Miranda away from that intersection first (like onto NW-bound Foothill w/ no light), and then worry about Arastradero.

Posted by Commander McBragg, a resident of another community, on Jun 25, 2009 at 7:19 pm

I just read the story about the meeting. It left me wondering what the city transportation manager meant by "the worst configuration possible". It's just a typical four-lane road. I guess it's because it allows people to do 40 instead of 25. Also, why is it so dangerous? Has anyone been hit by a car lately, and if so, was it caused by the road configuration? I've driven this road many times, and the only worry I had was for being pulled over for not slowing down to 25-30. I've never had any trouble keeping out of the bike lane. Trying to get people to give up driving isn't a solution to traffic problems, it's just an admission that you don't have a solution.

Posted by Palo Alto Mom for safe, efficient streets, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 7:53 pm

I applaud the PTC for recommending the hybrid trial. There is so much misinformation in this thread, it is clear to me that most of these writers have neither seen the striping plan nor read the related report.

As for cost, the road will be repaved and restriped as part of its regular maintenance. The job needed to be done anyway. The planning work is paid for by mitigation money from the nearly 1,000 new units of housing that have been approved/built in the corridor service area.

Arastradero has a significantly higher crash rate than other roads of this type in the state. These crashes don't only involve peds and bikes, they involve autos too. In fact, quite recently one auto crash resulted in a fatality on Arastradero.

A three-lane configuration will control speeds throughout the day. More importantly, it will reduce uncontrolled turning movements that the current configuration encourages. These turning movements by motorists are a primary cause of crashes on the corridor. They create risk for ALL road users, including motorists.

Further, a three-lane configuration can maintain point-to-point travel times because it eliminates delays created by uncontrolled turning movements. (Traffic does not flow like water. Uncontrolled turning movements really gum up the works.) Road diets like this have been used all over the country successfully. Before you criticize a project in a public forum, I urge you to take the time to inform yourself. The report is publicly available.

Anyone who lives south of Arastradero has to cross the corridor to get to schools, parks, the library---any number of walking/biking destinations. There is no alternate route. The person who suggested there is...is simply wrong.

This year's fall bike counts showed 600 kids/day riding bikes to Gunn. That doesn't count the kids who walk and ride the bus (Bus riders become pedestrians before and after they ride.)

The person who commented on bus service being cut is only partly correct. Citywide bus service was cut. Some routes were reduced that were not getting good ridership. Instead, VTA added service for Gunn students because they DO use the bus, and ridership to Gunn is up as a result.

Traffic signals will be upgraded as part of the plan. The hardware for a traffic adaptive signal system that will respond to traffic in real time and should yield intersection efficiencies of 20% (conservatively)or more was installed with the first phase of this project. The system will go online with Phase II once software adjustments have been completed.

Articles refer to "staff" because more than one staff member worked on this project as a team. Their names are publicly available on the report they submitted last night--which I encourage you to read. The article does not go into great detail describing the plan. If you read the report, it clearly shows that where capacity for automobiles is needed, the road retains 2 lanes in each direction.

As a mom who regularly drives, walks and bikes on Charleston/Arastradero (and will soon have children riding bikes to Gunn from south of the corridor), I am completely in favor of the plan. I think the Charleston plan has been a vast improvement. Speeds are now maintained closer to the 25mph posted speed limit. I can't wait to see the improvements on Arastradero. They will be different because of the higher volumes---which WERE studied in minute detail.

It's a shame we have to do this work. I wish all road users would be more considerate of each other so this kind of work would not be necessary. Each driver, bike rider, and pedestrian who breaks the law by running lights, speeding, etc. creates risk for themselves and OTHERS. This is a heavily traveled school commute corridor, serving ELEVEN public and private elementary, middle, and high schools. All of those children deserve a safe route to school, and residents of the area deserve safe, convenient access to their neighborhoods. This plan delivers both.

Remember, it's a paint TRIAL. If elements of it don't work, they will make adjustments as they did on Charleston. If it is a failure, they will scrape it up and repaint. Given the data I've seen, I think a trial is well worth the effort.

Posted by Pedestrian Mom, a member of the Juana Briones School community, on Jun 25, 2009 at 8:55 pm

I walk/bike with my kids to school along Arastradero many days each week, and I have to say the current lane configuration is DEADLY. There is NO barrier between car lanes / bike lane / sidewalk. Many elementary kids walk to school only 3 feet from cars going 40 miles per hour, many of these cars veering into the bike lane.

My kids have come close to being hit by a car 6 times in the past year - within a foot of cars who have failed to stop at the intersections or who have drifted into the bike lane.

This is primarily a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood, and commuters who are passing through to get to/from 280 will have to consider taking another route if commute time slows down with the rezoning. Commuters' convenience DOES NOT trump my kids' and every other kids' right to a safe walk to school.

Posted by Dr. Driver, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:54 pm

How can the answer to more cars on the road be to reduce the amount of road? When traffic crawls on Arastradero it will push into the residential neighborhood. Don't see how that helps anything. Just like the current configuration of Charleston bewteen Alma and Middlefield hasn't been helpful. (By the way 25 is stupid speed limit for a major road in a city the size of Palo Alto. It's way to slow and no one observes it anyway. Same is true on Middlefield between Charleston and Colorado.)

Posted by Parent of a Gunn student, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Jun 26, 2009 at 12:21 am

Our older child biked to Gunn for all 4 years of her high school career. She still does not own a car (and where would we have put one, even if we could afford it?) Our incoming Gunn freshman will be doing the same. They have been and WILL be encouraged by us to ride on the sidewalk wherever the street is too dangerous and drivers may be sleepy - I'd rather see them "riding incorrectly" and still ALIVE at the end of the day, thank you. The story of Amy Malzbender (2003) still haunts me.

Posted by Richard, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 7:27 am

Palo Alto Mom explained it well, but perhaps people didn't understand all her technical jargon. The fact is that the 2 lanes there now operate at well below 50% efficiency during peak times, so the effective capacity is less than one lane. A single car turning left blocks the left lane and drops its capacity to zero. The drivers behind that one who change into the right lane to go around disrupt the flow in the right lane and cause crashes, so that lane operates at lower efficiency. The new plan puts in left turn lanes at every intersection so that the one remaining lane can operate at full efficiency all the time.

To the Gunn parent: Amy Malzbender was standing by the side of the road, off of the pavement when she was hit. Sidewalk biking is not the solution.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 7:50 am

Perhaps we should think about these left hand turns. At present on the striping on Charleston residents cross the unused portion of the road to turn left in and out of their driveways. When these stripings turn into medians with plants (I think that is still the plan), these residents will have to turn right and then do U turns. This will in fact cause more problems as where are these U turns going to occur? Are the medians going to be just stripings, or are they going to be raised medians with plants?

Posted by JT, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 9:50 am

Commander McBragg says: "The speed limit here is 25 MPH." This is wrong the speed limit is the 85th percentile of the average speed. It may be posted 25 MPH but that is a wish on the part of the City government.

A speeding ticket will not be given unless you are going considerably faster than the 85th percentile of the average speed.

The 85th percentile of the average speed on Charleston used to be around 37 MPH.

Posted by AJensen, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Jun 26, 2009 at 10:01 am

I find it interesting that the planning commission made its decision even after hearing strong objections from the entire Gunn staff and student community. Traffic is already backed up on Arastradero in the mornings and after school since there is only one entrance to Gunn High School. What will happen when there is only one lane of traffic going in each direction? This will be a traffic nightmare.

Posted by Betty, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 10:51 am

Mr. Dawid's statement above lends credence to my suspicion that a(n ulterior?) motive of this "improvement" is to try to make driving to school so unpleasant that students will opt to walk or bike instead (or their parents will force them).

I completely agree with this statement. As long as driving is faster than walking, this is what the kids will do. Furthermore, it is ironic that we have people who insist on limiting housing and grocery stores for fear of traffic, yet creating traffic is considered a "solution" to the speeding problem.

When I went to Gunn, there was only one entrance/exit on Arastradero. I don't know if it is still like this, but maybe creating another Exit onto Foothill expressway would ease some of the stress on Arastradero.

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 10:51 am

"Whoever put Miranda 100ft from Foothill should be fired"....

FWIW - Miranda existed long before Foothill became a road. Foothill was the old right-of-way for the Pacific Electric trolley line. Electric street cars ran up and down that corridor for decades.

Posted by Irvin Dawid, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 11:38 am

Please pardon me for referring to today's Daily Post - but it was surprising - in a positive way, to see them use the term 'Road Diet' on their front page for this article.

In response to a prior question here, it is my understanding the 'staff' = Gayle Likens/transportation manager, + city's transportation engineer, Rafael Rius who discussed traffic light timing on Weds night. Then there was a 'contract planner', TJKM.

Apologies to Weekly for citing the Daily Post...

Posted by Priscilla, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 11:49 am

When the 8.5-acre site developed on East Charleston Road as a multi-purpose, intergenerational campus including a Jewish Community Center and 193 units of assisted and independent living for seniors goes on line, we will be grateful for the new lane configuration between Louis Road and Middlefield Road. I’m hoping this new configuration will have a calming effect on the new traffic generated by the Campus for Jewish Life.

"It's true that many vehicles speed on East Charleston Road between Louis Road and Middlefield Road, but conditions were worse before the lanes were reduced. We then had speeding and unsafe lane changing with people driving SUVs having trouble controlling their vehicle. These people would swerve into the bike lane because they were going too fast while changing lanes."

Posted by Palo Alto Mom for safe, efficient streets, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm

It is not even a little correct to say that the "entire" Gunn population opposes the project. I have been to most of the meetings on this project. Some oppose it. More support it. People who frequently use the road AND have taken time to study the plan usually come to the conclusion that this is worth a trial...and that is what has been proposed.

It's a good idea. We expect to see at least a 50% reduction in crashes with this plan. The road serves ELEVEN schools. We must reduce speeds and crashes.

Let's do it! Let's reward our kids who get to school using their own foot power instead of polluting gasoline by giving them a safe route to school. About half of PAUSD students are using alternative modes of transportation these days. Imagine how congested our streets would be if those kids started to opt for cars because of poor street safety.

Biking is a healthy, environmentally friendly and FUN way to travel. This is a great option for school kids (and adults, too!)...as long as we engineer safe routes for them.

Posted by Hugh, a member of the Terman Middle School community, on Jun 26, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Blah Blah Blah

Aren't there any important issues to worry about?

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Most of the students I know who ride or walk to Gunn do not use Arastadero but enter through the entrances in residential Barron Park. They do not use Charleston and Arastadero at all. The same for many of the Terman students who cross Arastadero but do not ride it.

For many of you who think this will make the road safer for bikes, consider that many of those biking won't change their routes, fortunately.

Or is this really the Barron Park residents who want to get the bike traffic from outside their homes?

Posted by Parent of a Gunn student, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Jun 26, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Resident - do you know of an alternate route that bicycling students who live along Charleston/Arastradero in adjacent neighborhoods such as the Greenmeadow area (and others) can take to get to Gunn? Charleston/Arastradero is these students' most direct route, travelling through Barron Park would require going out of their way.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Not sure of the names of all the streets, but you can get onto Meadow (either from Bryant or perhaps going through Hoover and JLS schools or Mitchell Park) then turn west, crossing the RR and El Camino into Maybell. Follow Maybell to the top and instead of turning left to get to Arastadero at Terman, turn right and follow the road to the back entrance of Gunn, bike and pedestrian only, which comes out right near the bike cage. My student used this route to Gunn from south Palo Alto. There is also a pedestrian entrance at the top of Los Robles which comes out near the football field.

I tried looking for better directions on the pausd web site and also safer routes to school on the city website, but had very little luck.

The best way to bike anywhere is often not the best way to drive and taking shortcuts through parks and schools or using Bryant or Park Blvd. can make a much more safe alternative and is often a shorter distance.

Posted by Richard, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Students coming to Gunn up Meadow have two choices: turn right on El Camino Way and go up Los Robles to the end and in to Gunn through the park or turn left on El Camino way and go up Maybell, turn right at Donald and left onto Georgia and enter that way. If you are coming up Charleston you can cut over to El Caminon Way via Wilkie and James and follow the directions above or you can cross El Camino on Charleston and then cut over to Maybell on Clemo, then follow that route. These routes may add one or more blocks to going straight up Arastradero, but will put you on streets with much slower speeds and lower traffic volumes. You decide your priority.

Posted by Hugh, a member of the Terman Middle School community, on Jun 26, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Palo Alto Mom for safe, efficient streets,

You are so right, cars are evil, people drive too fast in them, internal combustion is killing the planet. The butterflies and humming birds are being harmed, global warming is going to bring the end of civilization. The world and Palo Alto being the center of the Universe would be so much better off if we all rode bikes or camels. Let's tear up all the roads and plant daisies and sunflowers.

Peace and love

Posted by Albert, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Jun 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm

The Traffic planners clearly are a bunch of wimps. They should flex their muscle and solve the problem by invoking Eminent Domain over all the houses fronting Arastradero and widen this major city artery. This would solve the problem of the whiney neighbors and provide ample space for the expected traffic on this major city artery while providing room on the road for bicycles lanes with barriers as well.

Duh! problem solved. Safe roads and no complaints.

Posted by Gunn teacher, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Jun 26, 2009 at 8:27 pm

Most teachers and students have not been to the Planning Commission meetings because they take place at times when most of us cannot attend. However, when a representative of the commission came to Gunn and explained the proposal to staff members everyone was against the plan.

Ask students at Gunn what they think. Students and teachers are already planning how they can cut through the neighborhood behind Arastradero to avoid the certain back up of traffic on Arastradero once this misguided plan is put into action.

We will be at the City Council meeting and express our concerns.

Posted by Hopeful, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2009 at 11:32 pm

The answer to the escalating traffic problem is to stop new development which pours more cars onto our streets, making them more dangerous. But as the new JCC and Hyatt development shows, the planning commission and city council have no backbone for that.

The next option is to make it more expensive to drive - which is essentially what this proposal does. Hopefully we can find a way to make it easier to walk, ride bikes and telecommute.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2009 at 8:48 am

Cutting Arastadero to one lane will lead to an adjustment in how we plan our routes. I for one never use Charleston between Middlefield and El Camino during the early morning or mid afternoon/early evening hours because I know it will take about 3 light changes to get across Alma. I expect to use other routes if I need to instead of Arastadero although there is less choice.

The big point is that traffic is not going to get any lighter. Looking at Gunn and to a certain extent the other schools in this corridor, they are going to get bigger and even if we can increase the number of students biking and walking or using the bus, we still have the increased number of teachers and administrators driving there - after all we do not see any numbers of how many teachers/administrators/janitors ride bikes or walk to school.

This increased traffic is going to happen. How will vehicles from 280 get to the new JCC? How will vehicles from 101 get to the Veterans hospital? The thing to remember is that this route is being used for out of town driving not just for local driving. Traffic is bad because this is a through route and this will continue to be so.

The increases in housing means that there will be more people having to get to where they want to go. Traffic is going to increase and it is not going to be popular.

I think keeping the status quo lanes and introducing no left turns into side streets would make more sense. If the left turns are the problem, then stop them. Yes residents would have to alter their routes so that they would approach their side street with a right turn approach, but through traffic would be able to move.

Posted by 25 saves lives, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2009 at 7:07 pm

25 mph is the speed limit because of all the schools. I saw the presentation and the chance that you die if hit by a car going 25 mph is half that if you get hit by car going 33 mph, so it is worth getting speeds down, especially if you can maintain travel times.

While counterintuitive, 3 lanes that include dedicated turning lanes and medians are just as fast as 4 lanes and accident rates drop by 2/3. In a busy 4 lane street, people trying to make left turns can really mess things up.

So think of this as tortoise vs hare kind of thing.... where tortoise is much much safer for everyone - drivers, bicylists and pedestrians alike.

I urge you to give it a shot - its not permanent and it really did work on other part of corridor.

Posted by jake, a resident of another community, on Jun 28, 2009 at 1:38 am

Perfect! are not these same people at City Hall telling us they don't have any money for capital improvement projects and reparing our current roads?