Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

RE: City of Menlo Park case number 20159

From: Quirion, Jesse T <"Quirion,>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:31:06 -0700


As I previously stated, you have made a great suggestion and we have ordered a new sign which will be installed as soon as it arrives to better aid in clarifying the operations of the intersection. However, the current configuration of the intersection meets all applicable vehicle codes and does not require any immediate modifications.

In regards to your concerns about vehicles switching lanes you may refer to the California Vehicle Code section 21658 Laned Roadways<https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c3/a1/21658>:
Laned Roadways

21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:

(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.

(b) Official signs may be erected directing slow-moving traffic to use a designated lane or allocating specified lanes to traffic moving in the same direction, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of the traffic device.
Amended Ch. 450, Stats. 1975. Effective January 1, 1976.

As indicted in the vehicle code, it is the responsibility of drivers to maintain their lane of travel until a lane shift can be completed with safety. Additionally, it states that signs "may" be erected to direct slow moving traffic. Therefore, we are installing the signs that you requested because we agree that it will aid in directing traffic, although this is not a requirement and therefore the sign will be installed as soon as it is available.

Jesse T. Quirion
Director of Public Works
City of Menlo Park
E: jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)
P: 650-330-6744

From: dnahom [mailto:dnahom_at_(domainremoved)
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:14 AM
To: Quirion, Jesse T
Cc: _CCIN; McIntyre, Alex D; Baile, Renato C
Subject: Re: City of Menlo Park case number 20159

There is a conflict of information.
The sign says furthest right lane turns right.
The painted road instructions differs and states the middle lane can go either straight or turn right.
If you are not familiar with the road or not on the middle lane to see it can also turn right, the drivers on the right tun lane will be under the impression they are the only drivers turning (as it used to be the case prior to construction).
How can it possibly be said it is not required to have the correct information?

Perhaps someone needs to take a short field trip to see the problem, because it appears the knowledge of this situation seems to be deemed trivia.
If any harm comes due to the City's negligence, who do think should be liable?

I have experienced nearly being sideswiped several times and the City's response again, still remains unacceptable.

Here are photos for visual purposes.
1) approaching intersection before Willow Market


2) optional directions on lane

3) absence of sign which conflicts with # 1 & 2
On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:37 PM, "Quirion, Jesse T" <jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)

Thank you for bringing to our attention a suggestion that we can implement to better inform drivers of the operations of the intersection.

In speaking with Rene Baile he has confirmed to me that he has placed the order for the new sign that will provide additional information at the intersection. The existing configuration of the intersection meets all applicable standards and regulations, therefore we will install the sign that you suggested, however it is not required and therefore will not be a rush order or installation.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Jesse T. Quirion
Director of Public Works
City of Menlo Park
E: jtquirion_at_(domainremoved)
P: 650-330-6744

From: dnahom [mailto:dnahom_at_(domainremoved)
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 11:09 AM
To: Baile, Renato C
Cc: _CCIN; McIntyre, Alex D
Subject: Re: City of Menlo Park case number 20159

Dear Baile,
There is currently the same existing sign reflecting only furthest right lane turns right.
There is a liability issue if there should be a collision.
This sign should be removed ASAP, as it is misleading.

This is unacceptable that when the decision to make the current changes, safely hazards were not put into place, such as having a sign ready to be put up.
Isn't there a Planning/Safety Committee for these kind if logistics?
Ordering signs and planning the lead time for arrival and installation is part of someone's job and someone has dropped the ball.
People who uses the road and their safety have not been put into any consideration.

One other issue:
1) same corner, two turning right lanes on Willow merge, so many cars do not merge prior to the solid white lane, many often doing so near the intersection of Blackburn.
Either the solid white line need to be extended if there is not enough time to merge or there should be a traffic officer monitoring this corner.

Bottom line: There are more cars on the road, this City needs to be more diligent and do their jobs.

On Jul 13, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Rene Baile <MenloParkDirectConnect_at_(domainremoved)
Dear Hom,

We will be ordering the sign to show lane designations for northbound Middlefield Road at Willow Road to address your traffic safety concern. Currently, the timeline for the installation is unknown contingent on the scheduled delivery of this sign.


Rene C. Baile, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
City of Menlo Park
(650) 330-6775

Original Request
Northbound Middlefield by Willow Road: since the construction and new "No right turn on red", missing is the sign that indicates the middle (as well as goes straight) and far right lanes turn right. Missed getting side swiped several times, even when I signaled.

How would you rate your overall support experience?
(5 = highest score)

( ) 5 ( ) 4 ( ) 3 ( ) 2 ( ) 1

Would you like to provide any comments or ask for a follow-up on this case?

Can't view this form? View web version<https://clients.comcate.com/rateCase.php?id=2&ratingId=58193&caseId=940575&token=mItG03qSWSmynjYwOJFyaNCvo9vmp0VQ8BUv40ANQk93HWnVdq>

(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)

(image/jpeg attachment: image002.jpg)

(image/jpeg attachment: image003.jpg)

(image/jpeg attachment: image004.jpg)

(image/jpeg attachment: image005.jpg)

Received on Mon Jul 20 2015 - 10:28:57 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)