News


Changes to Middlefield Road set to be permanent

Busy stretch in north Palo Alto will keep its turn restrictions, turn lanes

After an extended trial run, Palo Alto is preparing to make permanent the recent road modifications on a busy stretch of Middlefield Road with a long history of collision and congestion.

The City Council is scheduled to approve on Monday a recommendation from planning staff to permanently adopt the road modifications between Forest Avenue and the Menlo Park border, an area where residents have long complained about unsafe driving conditions. After considering five different "road diet" designs, the City Council approved the changes nearly two years ago and they were implemented in June 2017 as part of a one-way pilot.

The project includes a reduction from two lanes to one between Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue and the redesign of the four lanes between Palo Alto and Everett avenues to create two directional lanes along with a center turn lane, as well as dedicated left-turn lanes at Hawthorne and Everett avenues. The redesign also included the removal of one of two northbound lanes between Everett and Lytton avenues to create a left-turn-only lane, and a new right-turn-only restriction for cars approaching Middlefield along Hawthorne and Everett avenues.

Now, the results are in and both city staff and the majority of the residents believe the project has largely succeeded in meeting its primary objective of improving safety. The number of collisions on this stretch Middlefield — which has seen about 100 collisions between January 2014 and April 2017 — has dropped significantly. In the last three months of the pilot program (summer 2018), there were three reported collisions, which represented a 'five-year low compared to historic data for the corridor between 2012 and 2016," according to the city's consultant, Alta Planning and Design.

Consultants found that by the end of the pilot program, "near misses" along Middlefield have become virtually nonexistent, according to staff. A review of traffic-camera video showed that after an initial increase in "near-miss collisions," the number of observed near-misses at Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue and Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue during peak morning, mid-day and evening periods dropped to zero, a report from the city's Office of Transportation stated.

The safety improvements came with some side effects for commuters. At Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue, the level of service dropped from "D" to "E" (the second-lowest rating on a scale from A-F), though staff believes some of this may be the result of Palo Alto's concurrent effort to upgrade gas pipelines downtown, a project that required street closures. Staff also reported greater delays at the intersection of Middlefield and University Avenue, with cars experiencing an increase of about four seconds during midday and evening peak periods.

The data collected by Alta also showed that more cars are now using five routes parallel to Middlefield Road. The average number of cars that used these routes over a two-day period went from 687 before the pilot program to 952 vehicles at the end of the pilot program. This included an increase of 387 daily trips on Fulton Street and 441 daily trips on Guinda Street.

Despite this increase in traffic on parallel streets, the average traffic speeds have remained below the speed limit. As a result, 58 percent of the residents who were surveyed said they believe the project made the corridor safer, while 26 percent indicated they did not believe it did, according to the city's survey.

Overall, vehicle speeds decreased by about 11 percent on Middlefield Road in the study area. But while safety conditions improved overall, the city's consultants observed some cars driving around the new traffic diverters and making illegal U-turns.

The city's surveys also showed the project gradually growing in popularity. Over the one-year period of the project, support for it among residents grew from 33 percent to 66 percent, according to surveys.

John Guislin, a Middlefield Road resident who has long advocated for traffic improvements and who has a gallery of photos documenting traffic collisions on the busy stretch of the road, lauded the improvements but voiced some frustrations in early December about how long it is taking the city to permanently approve a project that he called "a success from all the measurements and analysis performed."

"While many other traffic projects suffer from long delays and/or negative reactions, Middlefield North should be a model for a successful partnership between the City and residents," Guislin wrote to city leaders.

He pointed to an analysis of the results that the city commissioned, which showed a decrease in the number of collisions and lower speeds.

"I can confirm that I and my neighbors feel safer driving on Middlefield as well as walking on our sidewalks and crossing at the new crosswalks," Guilsin wrote.

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.

Comments

32 people like this
Posted by Tom
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 12, 2019 at 10:44 am

They have created a new problem that is not being monitored: The sudden left turn only on Litton---people are always ignoring it or merging unsafely into the right lane. Lots on near misses there.


24 people like this
Posted by Joes
a resident of Stanford
on Jan 12, 2019 at 11:21 am

It sounds like they've simply moved traffic from this road to other nearby roads. Are there actually fewer total accidents, or did the accidents just move to as well?


25 people like this
Posted by JR
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 12, 2019 at 12:02 pm

Middlefield needs a similar "road diet" in South Palo Alto. The reckless driving I witness everyday on that road is like nothing else, scofflaws ignore the 25 mph speed limit like it is a joke. Middlefield should be one lane, with right / left turn lanes where needed, with protected bike lanes, from Oregon to Charleston. There is easily enough road room to make it happen.


24 people like this
Posted by parent
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 12, 2019 at 12:15 pm

We agree that part of Middlefield is much safer now that drivers gave more incentive to obey the speed limit. We need to do the same to the southern part of Middlefield.


28 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 12, 2019 at 3:39 pm

So moving traffic from an artery into parallel residential streets is called a "success", by Middlefield Road residents.

I wonder what the residents of the parallel streets think of this "success".

Also I would like to know the number of emails the city received supporting this as well as the number of emails they received against it.

How was the "success" verdict by residents counted? Did they send out a survey to all residents, or just the Middlefield Road ones? Did they send out a survey to those residents on the parallel streets?

T4byS


62 people like this
Posted by gnar
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jan 12, 2019 at 4:20 pm

A "road diet" in a growing city in the middle of the growing Bay Area, where population is projected to continue increasing steadily through 2040.

A bit like putting your growing pre-teen on a diet in the hopes that they'll never turn into an adult. They'll still become an adult; they'll just be screwed up in the long term because of your misguided intervention.

Palo Alto, stop pretending you're a hamlet from the 1950s and screwing up our roads.


35 people like this
Posted by JR
a resident of Palo Verde School
on Jan 12, 2019 at 5:23 pm

gnar, if you have to get somewhere fast, take 101, Alma, Foothill Expy, or 280. I'm so sorry that us pesky residents are getting in the way of your plans to recklessly speed down a neighborhood street with numerous schools, pedestrians, and residences. Taking a few minutes extra to reach your destination is so so terrible.


10 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jan 12, 2019 at 6:22 pm

Cars are bad! The pollute the air and they're on their way out! YOU are the traffic. We need to adapt, and evolve. Young people in the current generation don't want to drive anymore. They'd much rather ride buses, ride their bikes, while looking down on their phones going on Facebook and stuff. We don't need single occupant vehicles anymore! They are an outdated relic of the selfish Western way of life that encourages too much freedom and autonomy. We need to evolve closer towards Socialism! Everyone should use public transit and stop drinking from plastic bottles and vote for Ocasia-Cortez for president!
If you don't you're a racist selfish single-occupant vehicle driver who doesn't care about the community! Democracy dies in darkness. Forward!


7 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jan 12, 2019 at 6:37 pm

[Post removed.]


27 people like this
Posted by Amie
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jan 12, 2019 at 8:10 pm

I live on this road and LOVE the changes! We used to run out of our house several times a month to help folks in accidents, with cars on lawns, screeching wheels, ambulances, stopped traffic, etc. It was a nightmare, especially at Everett and and Middlefield. Thank god my neighbor is a nurse.....

Since the implementation of the road diet, we have not had to run out EVEN ONCE. I have not dialed 911 since the road diet either. I think people underestimated how dangerous the situation really was. It is great now! Plus there is a small lane for bikes so folks (like me, who hate driving) can more easily ride to Willows Market or Whole Foods.

Is it perfect, of course not. Nothing ever is. To make it better, I would support even more ped-friendly infrastructure, crossings, and a "real" continuous bike lane all the way down Middlefield from Menlo Park to Mountain View.


2 people like this
Posted by DC
a resident of Mountain View
on Jan 12, 2019 at 9:26 pm

The road diet was done on Evelyn years ago in Sunnyvale. The "safe roads" come at a price since during rush hour cars avoid using it due to the traffic jams 1 mile. But now residence must now endure not able enter the road due to a large waiting line or grid lock. If you are lucky you have an alternate street to use. Note Was has a habit or rerouting traffic onto side streets


12 people like this
Posted by MKK
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jan 13, 2019 at 8:05 am

I live in the Willows and walk and drive on this stretch often. I like all the changes. As a pedestrian, I find it easier and safer to cross Middlefield. I have not experienced any problems as a driver.


29 people like this
Posted by Wes
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 13, 2019 at 8:40 am

ONLY in PALO ALTO do people imagine that fewer lanes and more lane changes will lead to less congestions and collisions. Flies in the face of logic and common sense.


4 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 13, 2019 at 8:45 am

Posted by Wes, a resident of Green Acres

>> ONLY in PALO ALTO do people imagine that fewer lanes and more lane changes will lead to less congestions and collisions. Flies in the face of logic and common sense.

Your "common sense" doesn't agree with the anecdotes that others have posted. Instead of relying on anecdotes and "common sense", let's see some real statistics.


7 people like this
Posted by john_alderman
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 13, 2019 at 11:01 am

john_alderman is a registered user.

Palo Alto needs a diet. Throttling streets is advil for brain cancer.


21 people like this
Posted by @resident
a resident of Barron Park
on Jan 13, 2019 at 1:10 pm

You can say that the next generation doesn’t want to own cars but so far the data suggest otherwise. The only thing that gets people out of cars is top notch public transportation.... which we don’t have.

Saying something doesn’t make it so. It’s a myth that young people aren’t buying cars.


32 people like this
Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jan 13, 2019 at 4:08 pm

It's pretty obvious from this article that the analysis on the merits of this 'road diet' are incomplete at best, biased at worst.

1: this article makes it clear that the effect of the reduced capacity was to push traffic onto other streets.

"more cars are now using five routes parallel to Middlefield Road. The average number of cars that used these routes over a two-day period went from 687 before the pilot program to 952 vehicles at the end of the pilot program."

Effectively the analysis of the road diet concluded that less road capacity on middlefield resulted in less cars, and pushed more traffic on other streets and neighborhoods. Well...DUH!

2: That said, I can believe that collisions were reduced. The traffic 'workload' is more distributed now (using the roads of other neighborhoods), reducing the likelihood of collisions.

3: "speed down a neighborhood street with numerous schools, pedestrians, and residences." Middlefield is AN ARTERIAL ROAD. You knew that when you bought your home.

4: Palo Alto has traffic problems because Palo Alto allowed too many busineses without accounting for transportation capacity. Instead of complaining about workers/commuters, how about complaining by walking to your bathroom and yelling at your mirror: the person you're looking at is more responsible for Palo Alto traffic woes than the people commuting to jobs.


5 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 13, 2019 at 6:23 pm

The only problem I have with these changes is that there needs to be some
clear indication and signage about what to do if you want to go through.

For example, if you are going from Palo Alto to Menlo Park there is no clear
indication or what lane to get in. You need to get to the right lane going
south or you get stuck with traffic passing you with no way to merge.

Likewise going north into Palo Alto from Menlo Park there is no indication
of what lane to merge into, so the merging process is confusing and
inefficient.

Confusion is what creates traffic.

Better to have too much signs than too little ... and that should be no-brainer,
but apparently it is not.


23 people like this
Posted by This town is a mess
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 13, 2019 at 6:27 pm

Unfortunately this new road diet has created a new thoroughfare of traffic down Hawthorne and Everett. The cars are backed up at Middlefield and Lytton so they cut through Everett to get to downtown. Drivers used to cut through Everett to get to Alma and now they are cutting through to get to downtown as well. The cut through traffic is horrible and drivers are not obeying the no turn restriction signs. Not to mention, Everett has now become a truck route at all hours of the night.


16 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 13, 2019 at 6:45 pm

Reading through all these comments, both pro and con, it is clear to me that there is no consensus that this is a success. Thank you to those who have voiced your opinion that you think this is good. For those who think it is good are you just taking Middlefield into account or are you also taking the parallel streets into account?

Traffic is not something that if you make it difficult it will go away. Traffic is like water going downhill, it will always find its way to get around obstacles and find another way through. The amount of traffic is not any less but it will have moved to these parallel streets and it is not clear from the article how these parallel streets are dealing with it.

What are the problems that these parallel streets are having that they didn't have before? Are they experiencing more accidents or dangerous driving? Is it more difficult for the residents of these streets to get out of their driveways?

Cut through traffic happens for many reasons, some are to do with high volume on arteries. Some will find cut throughs because it is difficult to make their ultimate turn off a certain artery. Some will be because of traffic apps like Waze. For traffic to leave Middlefield and use an alternate route onto a parallel street it has to be for a good reason. I can't see that forcing traffic from an artery onto a parallel street is a good thing. It is not a good thing for the residents of those streets and it is not good for those on bikes or walking who like the idea of a safer, quieter street on which to bike or walk.

The fact that this is almost a done deal because the City has only looked at the effects of Middlefield really bothers me. It is similar to the fact that the City looks at Ross Road without taking any notice of what the changes there have done to parallel streets like Louis and Greer, or what has been done to Charleston/Arastradero without looking at streets like Meadow and Barron Park streets. Allowing these to continue without proper discussion about the effects on the alternate streets is unwise and problematic. City Council will be foolish to approve this without knowledge of the problems on other streets.

Traffic is not going to go away. It is not going to turn into bike traffic, or pedestrian traffic. In fact, we are getting more and more buses and shuttle type traffic and it seems that this is through buses and shuttles that don't even serve Palo Alto residents.

Traffic is a nightmare around town and diets and calming will only serve to move the traffic elsewhere. It will not reduce traffic.

I repeat, traffic is not being reduced. It is just being moved.


9 people like this
Posted by Middlefield Resident
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 13, 2019 at 8:38 pm

Traffic issues do generate lots of heat and dust!

The Middlefield project was created to make the roadway safer and it has done so dramatically. The accident data bear this out.

The one year pilot collected data at three points - beginning, middle and end - and the staff report confirms that safety is improved for everyone - drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and residents. The impact to side streets has been minimal and not resulted in any accidents.

Hawthorne and Everett have reduced traffic because left turns onto northbound Middlefield are prohibited.
All positive results.

A simple road configuration cannot eliminate all the issues associated with congestion and bad driver behavior.
Palo Alto has significant traffic problems and we need city council to follow-up from last years Special Traffic Town Hall to find solutions.


17 people like this
Posted by This town is a mess
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 13, 2019 at 9:02 pm

"Hawthorne and Everett have reduced traffic because left turns onto northbound Middlefield are prohibited.
All positive results."

Middlefield Resident - This is simply not true. Everett and Hawthorne have more traffic then ever before. Drivers ignore the turn restrictions on Alma turning left onto Everett and Hawthorne and speed down these streets and then turn right onto Byron to Lytton to turn left onto Middlefield. Thus, the whole block of Everett is still inundated with cars cutting through the street and taking the last right turn onto Byron a block before they reach Middlefield.

And now due to the Middlefield back up between Everett and Lytton, drivers ignore the right turn restrictions onto Hawthorne and Everett and race down our streets to downtown to avoid the congestion at Middlefield and Lytton.

The whole thing is a mess! Some residents are benefiting, some aspects are safer, but cars racing down Everett 6 at a time is no safer for our seniors crossing the street or children biking.


10 people like this
Posted by Bill
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jan 13, 2019 at 10:22 pm

Roads are for cars people. Get out of the way and stop whining. Middlefield is a convenient way to quickly get between Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View when traffic is horrible on 101, El Camino, and Alma. I'm going to continue to use this road (and all of the secondary roads) for this purpose and I will do so well above 25mph.


10 people like this
Posted by janice
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 13, 2019 at 11:11 pm

Amazing how people buy homes on arterial roads at a less expensive price than those on quieter streets and then start complaining about traffic.
And as to whether "most residents" of the neighborhood approve, where did that come from? More of government by squeaky wheels? We never got a survey.
These barriers DO push people onto different streets, and moreover, they result in much more driving since Downtown North residents have to go several blocks at leastout of the way, often with lights on Lytton to get to 101, even on weekends and during slow travel times. More gas used, more idling, more pollution.
Peak-time turn restrictions and no barriers would have accomplished the same goals with less disruption.


11 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 14, 2019 at 1:20 am

> Amazing how people buy homes on arterial roads at a less expensive price than those on quieter streets and then start complaining about traffic.

What is it about this argument that people somehow believe there is validity to it? Did you even consider the mindset implied by this kind of thinking? I am sure not.

The whole idea of buying a house and being part of a community, at least to me, should not be about lording the fact that you rich enough and lucky enough to not live on an "arterial road", but are so selfish that you would blame people for wanting a better quality of life ... for everyone. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with you?

The same people say that those who live under the flight path should not complain. Wake up and realize life and civilization is about working to make things better, not just making things better for yourself, and by some extension of illogic thinking that if thing are worse for others they are better for you ... that is mental illness for Christ sake.


6 people like this
Posted by @CrescentParkAnon
a resident of another community
on Jan 14, 2019 at 2:01 am

"Wake up and realize life and civilization is about working to make things better, not just making things better for yourself"

L. O. L. Yeah guys, haven't you ever heard of the greater good? If there's any city that's embodied the spirit of working in cooperation with those around it to make life better for everyone, rather than embarking upon selfish pursuits at everyone else's expense, surely that city is Palo Alto!


10 people like this
Posted by Many are happy
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 14, 2019 at 5:56 am

But it seems some of the the idiot drivers have issues with it because they aren't allowed to be idiots anymore on that stretch of road.
Next.


18 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 14, 2019 at 8:10 am

Posted by Bill, a resident of Evergreen Park

>> I'm going to continue to use this road (and all of the secondary roads) for this purpose and I will do so well above 25mph.

Here's hoping that the city can budget more for traffic enforcement, Bill.


15 people like this
Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jan 14, 2019 at 10:03 am

Middlefield Resident wrote:
"The impact to side streets has been minimal"

Traffic on nearby streets increased over 38% (from 687 to 952). Hardly 'minimal'.


12 people like this
Posted by dtnorth
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 14, 2019 at 10:39 am

--more cars are now using five routes parallel to Middlefield Road. The average number of cars that used these routes over a two-day period went from 687 before the pilot program to 952 vehicles at the end of the pilot program."

I am not sure how we call this a success by pushing traffic to the arterial streets. The roads like Middlefield and Alma are meant to carry the heavier loads of car. The residential streets were not. So to road diet the streets to take the traffic makes no sense. We now have the big white buses and shuttles coming down Everett where they didn't use to be. They should be using Middlefield and Lytton but the traffic backs up so much they use Everett.



3 people like this
Posted by Whoops
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 14, 2019 at 12:44 pm

It was about SAFETY, not flow.
The headline pretty much explains why those who understood the goal now call it a success.


5 people like this
Posted by vmshadle
a resident of Meadow Park
on Jan 14, 2019 at 1:25 pm

vmshadle is a registered user.

I recall reading complaints from Menlo Park residents regarding the southbound traffic backups to Willow Road and beyond after the road diet measures were installed. Their complaint was that the changes were instituted without regard for the upstream consequences to MP neighbors, especially during commute hours.

Is this still an issue? If so, we need to try to address it instead of being bad neighbors and plugging our ears and chanting la-la-la.


4 people like this
Posted by Paly Grad
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 14, 2019 at 6:16 pm

It will be even safer for pedestrians if the crosswalks at Middlefield Road/Hawthorne Avenue and Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue had flashing signs for the pedestrians.


6 people like this
Posted by Reality Check
a resident of University South
on Jan 14, 2019 at 7:40 pm

The increase in traffic on the parallel streets is 11 per hour divided across ffive streets. This is 2.2 cars per hour on each residential street on a weekday (weekends are not included in this data). Seems pretty inconsequential to me. Especially considering that residents are probably not even home when most of these new cars pass by.


2 people like this
Posted by janice
a resident of Downtown North
on Jan 14, 2019 at 10:22 pm

Actually, no, it IS about the greater good. Respectfully thinking what is wrong with people on any street who think ONLY their needs take priority? Those cars go somewhere. And they drive further which means more chances for accidents as well as air pollution. It's like the parking permits and in the past roadblocks etc. So maybe this is better for the people who live on Middlefield. It is NOT better for those on Everett or Hawthorne and other streets, Fulton for example, as cars weave through and make u-turns to try to avoid the Lytton -Middlefield backup. (Similarly with planes overhead. So we should not fly planes over the Peninsula at all? Put in a curfew so anyone arriving late gets diverted to Oakland? But that's a whole other issue.) In this case, I'd like to make things better for everyone, which sensible turn restrictions should accomplish.


15 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Jan 15, 2019 at 6:36 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Has anybody asked the Fire Department what has been the impact of this road diet on its response times? Should that data not be part of the experiment?


4 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 15, 2019 at 11:23 am

Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton

>> Has anybody asked the Fire Department what has been the impact of this road diet on its response times? Should that data not be part of the experiment?

Good question. I didn't see that in the minimal statistics that were in the article. While I generally favor the changes, I haven't seen an adequate statistical summary. What has the impact been on the overall accident rate in that section of streets, not just Middlefield itself? What has the overall change on traffic throughput been, on Middlefield, and, on the surrounding streets? What is the impact on end-to-end traversal time been through that area?

Good traffic engineering will measure all these things. When metering lights were installed on CA-85, people complained. After some public pressure, experiments were performed. The effect of the metering lights was demonstrated to be significantly positive. The traffic engineers were correct. But, they should have been ready with that information all along. It is tough to get public buy-in without adequate information.


8 people like this
Posted by PaloAltoCommuter
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jan 16, 2019 at 2:15 pm

I have been using Southbound Middlefield to commute home from Menlo Park to Midtown for about 10 years now. The reduction from two lanes to one is even more misguided that the "bike boulevard" damage inflicted on Midtown.

Traffic now backs up from Lytton almost all the way to Palo Alto Avenue near Willow Rd. due to the loss of the second lane. This is often exacerbated by the clueless drives that stay in the right lane when the left lane appears between Everett and Lytton, and do not disperse into the left lane. I have observed that the majority of them will not be making the right turn onto Lytton which they are waiting in a long line for, but will go straight through past University Ave.

It is common to look down Middlefield from my car and see one or two cars in the left lane at Lytton and the right lane filled, and this prevents anyone further back from using the left lane. In effect, only half the number of cars get through this stop-light intersection that could have before because the drivers themselves seem not to understand that they can disperse and get themselves and others a better chance of getting through the next stop-light cycle. Surely most of this traffic must be the same people taking the same route every day, let few seem to become aware that the left lane will go straight through the Lytton intersection.

It is also very obvious to me that there is an increase in the number of cars queued up to make the left turn onto Woodland Ave to take that route through to Old Palo Alto and beyond, or to 101. The signs placed around Woodland Ave. saying "no through traffic" are testament to the fact that are more cars heading this way since the Middlefield lane closure. Since Palo Alto doesn't measure traffic on Menlo Park streets, this fact is concealed.

Why can't the City Council just admit that there are a lot of cars that need to use this artery through Palo Alto and that adding constrictions in the route means less volume can flow. Speed has never been a problem during commute time in this area, I mean come on, how can you go fast when you're in a large pack stopping at every stop light? Reducing the lanes hasn't really made the cars go away, they just try to squeeze elsewhere or sit, idle and creep along to get past downtown. Which do you think is better for the environment? Cars going at a safe cruising speed efficiently past downtown as well as the stop-light allow? Or cars that have to move, stop, repeat? More emissions are produces getting a car moving than keeping it moving.


Like this comment
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 19, 2019 at 5:42 pm

I find it interesting that when any of these "tests" are proposed there is never any funds set aside to restore the road to previous conditions incase it doesn't work out. And the measurements either never accurately measure all the conditions prior to the test or never measure the impact of the adjoining environment.

Interesting article in the wsj Web Link

/marc


1 person likes this
Posted by Moot
a resident of Ventura
on Jan 20, 2019 at 11:11 am

People drive in such a distracted way that they do not pay attention to how the car length gaps between them and the car in front adds to backup. Secondly that driving 10 miles below the speed limit in a 25 mph zone, yes driving 15 mph, also adds to backup during rush hour. Thirdly, just randomly stopping in the middle of the road so kids can jump in the car adds to backup during rush hour. Fourth, driving partly in the land next I.e. essentially taking two lanes, also well below the speed limit while you play with your electronics also adds to backup.

You see a little attentiveness on the road and to cars around you will actually make a difference during rush hour and eliminate the backup. It is common sense people and Palo Alto residents don’t seem to exhibit much of that on the road


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Downtown Palo Alto gets new Vietnamese eatery
By Elena Kadvany | 10 comments | 5,744 views

More Stupid Plastic Food Things
By Laura Stec | 19 comments | 2,734 views

Couples: Write a Personal Ad . . . to Your Partner . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,697 views

State Legislature on Housing: Getting the Demos out of Democracy & with it, Accountability
By Douglas Moran | 7 comments | 1,600 views

Environmentalists will soon be fighting housing advocates over what to do with the SF Bay locally
By Diana Diamond | 21 comments | 1,104 views

 

Short story writers wanted!

The 33rd Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult (15-17) and Teen (12-14) categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by March 29. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category.

Contest Details